M.BRIJESH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court acknowledged that the circumstances were not encouraging for exercising discretion in favor of the petitioner. However, appreciating the petitioner's bona fides to clear the last installment without further legal recourse by the department, the Court directed the first respondent (Income Tax Officer) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's request (Ext.P3) in both writ petitions. This consideration was specifically limited to the time prayed by the petitioner for discharging the last installment, and it was to be done expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the receipt of the judgment. The Court did not explicitly decide on the petitioner's right to operate bank accounts, as the prayer was restricted.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M. Brijesh, proprietor of M/s. Geetham Sweets, filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala. He sought directions to the respondents (Income Tax Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and various banks) to grant him two months' time to pay outstanding dues as per an order (Ext.P2) and to permit him to operate his bank accounts. The petitioner later restricted his prayer to directing the respondents to dispose of his representation (Ext.P3) and stated his willingness to cooperate with the department regarding payment of the last installment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for two months' time to make payment of dues and to operate his bank accounts, considering the circumstances of the case? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought directions for time to pay dues and to operate bank accounts. Subsequently, the prayer was restricted to a direction for the disposal of his representation (Ext.P3) and he expressed willingness to cooperate with the department regarding the payment of the last installment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner had not treated the stipulated installments with seriousness and exhibited complacency. Therefore, the court should not grant indulgence. Alternatively, the revenue suggested that if proper cooperation is extended by the petitioner, the representation for extension of time for the last installment could be considered.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T [ WP(C) 10147/2019 ,WP(C).10207/2019 ] Heard Sri Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jose Joseph, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, Sri Deepak Joy, the learned counsel for the third respondent, Sri Amal George, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Sri S Easwaran, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Sri M. Sasindran, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
The petitioner prays for the following reliefs in both the writ petitions: “(i) To direct the respondents to grant 2 months time to make payment of the dues towards the amount ordered at Ext.P2 by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. (ii) To direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate his accounts with the respondents 3 to 6 Banks by the issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. (iii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”
Sri Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel, restricts his prayer to direct the respondents to dispose of Ext.P3 in both the writ -6- petitions and further submits that the petitioner would co-operate with the Department either in disposing of the representation or adhering to the time that may be granted in this behalf for paying the last instalment.
The learned Standing Counsel for revenue contends that in normal circumstances, he would not have opposed the writ prayer but the facts of the case on hand do not encourage the Court to show indulgence of any kind. According to the counsel, the petitioner is not treating the instalments stipulated by the Department with the required seriousness but with complete complacency and at the first instance prays for dismissing the writ petition.
He alternatively submits that it is for the petitioner to co- operate with the Department and if proper co-operation is extended, Ext.P3 representation to the extent of extension of time for paying the last instalment could be considered. The statement is placed on record.
The circumstances though are not encouraging straight away in exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner, but appreciating the bona fides to clear the last instalment without further recourse to law by -7- the Department, this Court is satisfied that the first respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 request in both the writ petitions to the limited extent of considering the time prayed by the petitioner for discharging the last instalment as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Communicate the judgment forthwith. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj -8-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
