REJITHA KASIM vs. THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/12013/2025HC KeralaKLHC01026679202510 April 2025Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the assessment and the pending appeal and stay petition, did not delve into the merits of the assessment itself. The Court found that the writ petition could be disposed of with a specific direction. Accordingly, the Court directed the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed in connection with the appeal (Ext.P2) as expeditiously as possible, within an outer period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The ratio decidendi is that when an appeal and stay petition are pending, and the assessee seeks expeditious disposal, the High Court can direct the appellate authority to consider the same within a stipulated timeframe, without adjudicating the underlying tax dispute.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rejitha Kasim, was assessed to tax for the assessment year 2017-2018 in the amount of Rs. 1,35,87,756/-. Contending that this assessment was erroneous, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The present writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the timely consideration and disposal of the pending appeal and stay petition. The petitioner is represented by advocates K. Krishna, Achyuth Menon, and Nirmal Krishnan, and the respondents are represented by Standing Counsel Sri. Jose Joseph.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of her appeal and stay petition filed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi? The petitioner's contention is that the assessment made against her is erroneous, necessitating an appeal. She has filed an appeal and a stay petition and seeks a time-bound consideration of these filings. The petitioner's counsel argued for a direction to the respondent authority to dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition expeditiously. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP(C) NO. 12013 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25157 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12013 OF 2025 PETITIONER(S) : REJITHA KASIM, AGED 45 YEARS AMBALATHUVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O. PAVARATTY, VENMANAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 507. BY ADVS. K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON NIRMAL KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): 1 THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)., PIN – 110 001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 12013 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:25157 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ......…............................................. W.P.(C) No.12013 of 2025 …................................................ Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT For the assessment year 2017-2018, petitioner has been assessed to tax of Rs.1,35,87,756/-. Contending that the said assessment is erroneous, an appeal has been preferred as Ext.P2 along with which a stay petition has also been filed. The limited relief now sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal as well as the stay petition in a time bound manner. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing counsel, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction. 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 stay petition filed in Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/25/03/2025

WP(C) NO. 12013 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:25157 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12013/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 19-02-2025 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16-03-2025 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16-03-2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →