M/S DIGITRONICS vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner should be provided with a link to enable them to upload the stay petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal and a delay petition. Consequently, the Court directed the third respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to provide the petitioner with a link to file/upload the stay petition as expeditiously as possible, within one week. Upon receiving the link, the petitioner was to file the stay petition within a further week. The third respondent was then directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition and the delay petition in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that any conditional stay order must be reasoned and that all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) would be deferred until orders were passed on the stay and delay petitions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s Digitronics, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the respondents to provide a link to upload a stay petition. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext P4) against an assessment order (Ext P1) and demand notices (Exts P2 and P3) before the third respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Along with the appeal, a delay petition (Ext P5) was also filed. Due to an imminent threat of enforcement of the assessment order, the petitioner wished to file a stay petition but lacked the facility to upload it. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in a similar matter.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondents to provide a link for uploading a stay petition in an appeal pending before the third respondent, considering the inability to access the online portal for such filing? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and access to justice). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are desirous of filing a stay petition in their pending appeal but are unable to do so due to the absence of a link to upload the same. They sought the benefit of a similar judgment passed by the High Court in an identical matter. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not record any specific contention against the petitioner's plea for a link to upload the stay petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents to provide the petitioner with a link in order to upload a stay petition in Ext P4 appeal pending before the third respondent.
The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order and Exts P2 and P3 demand notices, the petitioner has preferred Ext P4 appeal before the third respondent along with Ext P5 delay petition. Now, in view of the imminent threat of enforcement of Ext P1 order, the petitioner is desirous of filing a stay petition in Ext P4 appeal. But, as the petitioner has no link to upload the stay petition, it prays that the respondents may be directed to provide a link. The petitioner relies on Ext P7 judgment passed by this Court in an identical matter. The petitioner prays that it may be given the benefit of the similar judgment. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.Dheeraj Krishnan Perot, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred Ext P4 appeal before the third respondent along with delay petition on 19.6.2023, I am of the definite view that the petitioner should be provided with a link to enable him to upload the stay petition also. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) The third respondent is directed to provide the petitioner with a link, to enable it to file/upload a stay petition in Ext P4 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one week from today. (ii) On the receipt of the link, the petitioner shall prefer the stay petition within a further period of one week. (iii) If the petitioner files/uploads the stay petition, as stipulated above, the third respondent shall consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iv) Needless to mention that if the third respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reason for the same. (v) Until such time the third respondent passes orders on the stay petition and the delay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 shall stand deferred. sks/23.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
