SHRI MAHAVIR IRON AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WPT/93/2025HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01024896202501 September 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) to decide the application for grant of stay, moved by the petitioner along with the memo of appeal, expeditiously. The Court specified that the decision should preferably be made within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. The Court did not make any specific findings on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, nor did it grant any interim relief regarding coercive measures. The operative direction was solely for the expeditious disposal of the pending stay application by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Mahavir Iron And Steel Private Limited, is challenging an order or action by the respondent authorities. The assessment was completed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in a demand of Rs. 21,73,940/- raised on 28.03.2023. The petitioner filed an appeal before Respondent No. 1 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) in Form No. 35 and simultaneously moved an application for stay under Section 220(6) of the Act. However, the stay application remained undecided. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions for the disposal of the stay application and to prevent coercive recovery measures until the application and appeal are decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to dispose of the stay application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, expeditiously, in adherence to the guidelines laid down in KEC International Ltd. vs. B.R. Balakrishnan (2001) 251 ITR 158? 2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed not to resort to coercive measures for the recovery of the demand raised until the disposal of the stay application and the appeal filed under Section 246A of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that their stay application under Section 220(6) and their appeal under Section 246A have not been decided by the authorities, and they are seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of these applications and a stay on coercive recovery measures. They relied on KEC International Ltd. vs. B.R. Balakrishnan. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 opposed the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 220(6),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1

CGHC010248962025

2026:CGHC:38894

NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 93 of 2025 Shri Mahavir Iron And Steel Private Limited Having Its office At Mahavir Saw Mill, New Timber Market, Fafadih Raipur, C.G.- 492001 Through Its Director Devram Patel S/o Mavji Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Ambaji Niwas, Indira Timber Market, Bhanpuri District Raipur C.G..

... Petitioner versus 1 - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 1/(Central-1), Raipur, office of The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1/(Central)- 1,

Aayakar

Bhawan,

Civil

Lines,

Raipur,

(C.G.)-

492001 2 - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Na F A C), Delhi, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 3 - Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur, (C.G.)- 492001 4 - The Union of India Through Its Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Noth Block, New Delhi- 110001

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None in two rounds. For UOI : Mr. Ravikar Patel, CGC For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.09.2026

1.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 Directing respondent no. 1 to dispose of the stay application/application filed under Section 220(6) of the Act not to 1 treat assessee/petitioner in default in Annexure "P-2"(Colly) as expeditiously as it is feasible.

10.

2 Directing respondent authorities not to resort to any coercive measure for recovery of demand raised vide Annexure "P/I"(Colly) till the disposal of the stay application/application filed under Section 220(6) of the Act not to treat assessee/petitioner in default or appeal filed under Section 246A of the Act i.e. Annexure "P-2" (Collv)whichever is earlier.

10.

3 Alternatively staying effect and operation of Annexure "P/1" (Collv) till the disposal of the stay application/application filed under Section 220(6) of the Act not to treat assessee/petitioner in default or appeal filed under Section 246A of the Act i.e. Annexure "P-2" (Colly) whichever is earlier (the aforesaid relief is prayed for as an alternate to relief 10.2 prayed for vide the present petition).

10.

4 Any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2.

It is pleaded by the petitioner that assessment was completed by the respondent authorities under Section 153C read with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and on 28.03.2023 a demand of Rs.21,73,940/- was raised. Against demand raised by the respondent authorities an appeal was preferred before the respondent No.1 in 3 Form No.

35.

An application for grant of stay was also moved u/s. 220 (6) before the respondent No.1, but till date application for grant of stay has not been considered and decided.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose.

4.

Heard.

5.

Having considered limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to decide application for grant of stay moved by the petitioner along with memo of appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from today.

6.

Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

7.

With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of.

8.

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the petitioner.

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

JUDGE Nadim

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →