KELATHPARAMBIL UMMER MUHAMMED SHAREEF vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any demand pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The Court acknowledged the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kelathparambil Ummer Muhammed Shareef, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2018-19. He filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and simultaneously an application for stay (Ext.P3). The petitioner apprehended recovery proceedings for the amounts due under the assessment order while his stay application was pending. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the pending stay application and to prevent coercive recovery actions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the stay application expeditiously? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of his stay application (Ext.P3) and to prevent coercive recovery actions pending the decision on the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard. No specific arguments or contentions from the revenue's side are recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the stay application or the assessment order.
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 2018- 19 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. 40092/2022 -3-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
