KELATHPARAMBIL UMMER MUHAMMED SHAREEF vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that any demand pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The High Court found that the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner warranted this intervention. The principle established is that a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct an appellate authority to dispose of a stay application expeditiously and can grant interim relief by keeping demand in abeyance pending such disposal, especially when recovery is apprehended.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kelathparambil Ummer Muhammed Shareef, is challenging an order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and simultaneously filed an application for stay of recovery proceedings. The petitioner apprehended that recovery actions might be initiated under the assessment order while his stay application was pending. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a stay application pending before the appellate authority, when recovery proceedings are apprehended. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps might be taken to realize amounts due under the assessment order while his stay application was pending before the appellate authority, and sought intervention from the High Court to prevent this. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard. No specific arguments for the revenue are recorded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
None
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2017- 18 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P3 application for stay. Petitioner apprehends that steps may be taken to recover amounts due under Ext.P1, pending consideration of Ext.P3 application for stay, by the appellate authority.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel also.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, any demand pursuant to Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG
W.P (C) No.39471/2022 -3-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
