MANGATTU PARAMBIL MOHAMMED IRSHAD vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay was proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Furthermore, all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be deferred until orders were passed on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expediting the stay petition and deferring coercive action.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mangattu Parambil Mohammed Irshad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner had filed the appeal and stay petition on October 24, 2022, against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Despite the pendency of these applications, no orders had been passed. The petitioner requested that further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order be deferred until a decision on the stay petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the second respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal and stay petition expeditiously? (Question of procedural law) 2. Whether further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order should be deferred until the stay petition is disposed of? (Question of procedural law) The petitioner's contention, as argued by Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, was that his appeal and stay petition have been pending since October 24, 2022, without any orders being passed, and therefore, the court should direct the respondent to consider and dispose of them expeditiously and defer further proceedings. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition, expeditiously, and until such time defer all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order.
The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the second respondent on 24.10.2022. Despite the pendency of Exts.P2 and P3, no orders have been passed. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned
WP(C) NO. 19155 OF 2023 3 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 Ext.P3 stay petition is pending consideration before the second respondent since 24.10.2022, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:- (i) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition, 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. (ii) Needless to mention, if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same.
WP(C) NO. 19155 OF 2023 4 (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall stand deferred. rmm14/6/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 19155 OF 2023 5
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
