M,/S. MANAPPURAM JEWELLERS LTD. vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUITY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously, in accordance with the law, within two 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 further stipulated that if the second respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be provided. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and the implementation letter (Ext P4) were to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of their expeditious disposal and the interim relief pending decision.
What were the facts?
M/s. Manappuram Jewellers Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the second respondent) to expeditiously consider and dispose of their appeal (Ext P2) and stay petition (Ext P3). The petitioner had filed the appeal and stay petition on January 30, 2023, against an assessment order (Ext P1) passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (the first respondent). Despite the pendency of the stay petition, the respondents were threatening to implement the assessment order, with the Income Tax Officer, DCIT Circle 1(1) & TPS, Thrissur (the third respondent) issuing a letter (Ext P4) for implementation. The petitioner sought intervention to prevent further proceedings until their stay petition was decided.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the National Faceless Appeal Centre to expeditiously consider and dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee, considering the delay since January 30, 2023, and the threat of coercive action for implementation of the assessment order. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that their appeal and stay petition have been pending before the second respondent since January 30, 2023, without any consideration. They further contended that the respondents are threatening to proceed with the implementation of the assessment order, necessitating the writ petition to prevent such action until the stay petition is decided. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondents, was heard. However, the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.
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 Exts P2 appeal and P3 stay petition expeditiously.
The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext P2 appeal before the second respondent along with Ext P3 stay petition. Ext P3 stay petition was filed as early as on 30.1.2023. However, the same has not been considered by the second respondent. In the meantime, the respondents are threatening to proceed with the implementation of Ext P1 order, for which the third respondent has issued Ext P4 letter. Hence the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.Harisankar V Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Having considered the fact that Exts P2 and P3 are pending consideration before the second respondent since 30.1.2023, 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 two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) If the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same.
(iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts P1 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance. sks/29.5.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
