GANPATI ISPAT LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP (LLP) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WPT/92/2025HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01024894202524 August 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 the CIT(Appeals) to decide the application for grant of stay, moved by the petitioner along with the memo of appeal, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the stay application or the appeal itself, but only issued a procedural direction for its timely disposal. No specific finding was given on the validity of the demand or the grounds for stay, as the primary issue was the delay in deciding the application. The operative direction was to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ganpati Ispat Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), previously Ganpati Ispat Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioner sought directions for the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) to dispose of their stay application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending their appeal under Section 246A. The assessment was completed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Act, resulting in a demand of Rs. 2,07,48,230/- raised on March 25, 2023. The petitioner had filed an appeal in Form No. 35 before the CIT(Appeals) along with a stay application, but the stay application remained undecided. The petitioner also sought to prevent coercive recovery measures until the stay application and appeal were decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioner's stay application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeal filed under Section 246A expeditiously, in adherence to the guidelines in KEC International Ltd. vs. B.R. Balakrishnan (2001) 251 ITR 158. Assessee's Contention: The assessment was completed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3), leading to a demand of Rs. 2,07,48,230/-. An appeal was filed before the CIT(Appeals) with a stay application, which has not been decided to date. The petitioner seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay application and appeal, and to prevent coercive recovery measures. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose.

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

CGHC010248942025

2026:CGHC:38017

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 92 of 2025  Ganpati Ispat Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) (Previously Known As Ganpati Ispat Private Limited And Converted To L.L.P. On 5th April 2023), Having Its Office At Behind Uniworth Textile, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, (C.G.) - 492001, Through Its Partner Mr. Bhaskar Agrawal S/o Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 68 Gulmohar Park, Laxman Nagar, 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 (NaFAC), 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.

Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner

: Mr. Adarsh Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.08

.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 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.25 17:57:08 +0530

2 stay application/application filed under Section 220(6) of the Act not to 1 treat assessee/petitioner under Section 246A of the Act i.e. 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that assessment was completed by the respondent authorities under Section 153C read with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and on 25.03.2023 a demand of Rs. 2,07,48,230/- was raised. He would contend that against demand raised by the respondent authorities an appeal was preferred before the learned CIT (Appeals) in Form No.

35.

He would contend that application for grant of stay was also moved along with said appeal, 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

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 CIT(Appeals) 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.

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →