Satya Narayan Sharma vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2[1]
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It directed the petitioner to file an application for hearing on stay applications and early hearing of appeals before respondent No. 3 within two weeks. Upon such an application, respondent No. 3 was directed to consider and decide the stay application expeditiously, preferably within 30 days from the date of the application. Regarding the appeals themselves, respondent No. 3 was directed to endeavor to decide them expeditiously, preferably within four months, as indicated by the revenue's counsel. Furthermore, the court directed that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner for recovery for a period of one month or until the decision on the stay applications, whichever is later. The court did not decide the merits of the appeals or the stay applications.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, S.N. Sharma, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), respondent No. 3, to decide pending stay applications and appeals for assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11 expeditiously. The petitioner argued that these applications and appeals have been pending without decision. The revenue contended that the appeals involve block assessments for seven years, requiring significant time, and that the stay applications were filed later than the appeals, necessitating reasonable time for consideration. The ITAT noted the pendency of the stay application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT (respondent No. 3) should be directed to decide the stay applications filed by the petitioner for assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11 expeditiously? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and timely disposal). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that their stay applications and appeals are pending before respondent No. 3 and should be decided expeditiously, relying on a Division Bench judgment in W.P. 3488/11. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the appeals involve block assessments for seven years, which are time-consuming. They also submitted that the stay applications were filed later (May 2012) than the appeals (January 2012), and thus, respondent No. 3 should be allowed reasonable time to consider and decide them.
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.
1.....
W.P.No. 17145 of 2012 S.N. Sharma Commissioner of Income Tax 08.11.2012 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondents. Petitioner has sought following reliefs: 1. To direct the respondent No.1 & 3 to decide the stay applications of the petitioner. 2. To direct respondent No.3 to hear the appeals of the petitioner for the AY 2004- 05 to 2010-11 expeditiously. 3. To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon. Court deems just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case to give relief to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appeal along with stay applications for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11 are pending before respondent No.3 who may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in these appeals prayer of the petitioner for staying recovery proceedings are also pending but these applications have not been considered till date. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that respondent No.3 may be directed to hear and decide the application for stay and appeal also expeditiously. Reliance is placed to a judgment of Division Bench in W.P. 3488/11. Shri Lal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that so far as appeals are concerned, these appeals involves block assessment for 7 assessment years which would take sufficient time as the assessments are to be made as per the search and seizure. It is also submitted by him that the application for stay was not filed alongwith the appeal in the month of January,2012 but they have been filed some where in the month of May,2012 2.....
W.P.No. 17145 of 2012 S.N. Sharma Commissioner of Income Tax 08.11.2012 so a reasonable time be allowed to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the aforesaid application and appeal. Considering the fact that the stay application is pending with respondent No.3 for consideration, we find it appropriate to dispose of this petition with certain directions. Petitioner to file an application in all the appeals for hearing on stay application and also for early hearing of the appeal. If any such prayer is made by the appellant within a period of two weeks before respondent No.3, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the application for stay expeditiously as far as possible within a period of 30 days from the date of such applications. So far as the appeals are concerned, the respondent No.3 shall make an endeavour to decide the aforesaid appeals expeditiously as far as possible within a period of four months, as stated by Shri Lal. So far as the recovery against the petitioner is concerned. It is directed that for a period of one month or till the decision on the applications, whichever is later, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for enforcing recovery in question. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026