VENUGOPALAN NAIR KUTTAN PILLAI vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed along with the appeal (Ext.P2). This consideration must be done after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, all proceedings for recovery of the amount due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall remain suspended. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the interim relief sought.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Venugopalan Nair Kuttan Pillai, is challenging an order of assessment (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay application (Ext.P3) before the appellate authority. The primary grievance in this writ petition is to prevent the recovery of demands arising from the assessment order pending the decision on his stay application by the appellate authority. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment Unit), and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition was filed in the High Court of Kerala.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the recovery of demands under the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be suspended pending the consideration of the stay application (Ext.P3) by the appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery proceedings should be put on hold until the appellate authority decides on the stay application. The petitioner relies on the principle that recovery should be deferred when a stay is pending consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the stay of recovery proceedings. However, the revenue is represented by its Standing Counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Tax Act, 1961
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.
WP(C) NO. 15810 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 15810 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: VENUGOPALAN NAIR KUTTAN PILLAI AGED 67 YEARS S/O KUTTAN PILLAI TC 3/2468-5, VISHNU BHAVAN, TKD ROAD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 BY ADVS. K.P.PRADEEP T.T.BIJU T.THASMI M.J.ANOOPA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110001 2 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-, PIN - 110003 BY ADVS. SRI. P.R. AJITH KUMAR-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15810 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024. The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 application for stay. The only relief sought for by the petitioner is that the demands under Ext.P1 may not be recovered pending consideration of the stay petition by the appellate authority. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 3. Having regard to the limited nature of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for stay filed along with Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time the orders are passed on Ext.P3, any proceedings for recovery of the amount due under Ext.P1 shall remain suspended. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- GOPINATH P. ab JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 15810 OF 2024 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15810/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1063242592(1) DATED 23-03-2024 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 26-03-2024 FILED FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 26- 03-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1063242624(1) ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO 491 OF 2024 DATED 05-04-2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
