JACOB THOMAS, vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions. The petitioner was directed to file the stay petitions before the third respondent within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Upon receipt, the third respondent was to transmit these petitions to the second respondent as per procedure. The second respondent was then directed to consider and dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously, within three months of their receipt. If a conditional order of stay was proposed, the second respondent was required to provide reasons. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petitions, and provided the petitioner completed the filing exercise as directed, the respondents were directed to defer further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order, penalty order, and demand notice.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Jacob Thomas, filed a writ petition seeking a link to upload stay petitions for appeals filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a penalty order (Ext.P3). These appeals (Exts.P2 and P4) were preferred before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre. During the pendency of these appeals, a demand notice (Ext.P5) was issued. The petitioner was unable to upload the stay petitions due to the absence of an appropriate link. The respondents were represented by counsel. The High Court heard the parties and considered the pleadings and materials on record.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondents to provide a link for uploading stay petitions in appeals pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they are unable to upload stay petitions in their pending appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to the lack of an appropriate link, and therefore, they require a direction to the respondents to provide such a link. The petitioner sought to file stay petitions to stay further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order, penalty order, and demand notice. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that it would be up to the petitioner to file the stay petitions before the third respondent (Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Thiruvalla), who would then transmit them to the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents to provide the petitioner with a link to upload the stay petitions proposed to be filed in Exts.P2 and P4 appeals.
The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P3 penalty order, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P2 and P4 appeals respectively, before the second respondent. During the pendency of Exts.P2 and P4 appeals, Ext.P5 demand notice has been issued. Hence, the petitioner proposes to file stay petitions in the said appeals to stay further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1, P3 and P5. But, the petitioner is unable to upload the stay petitions for the want of the appropriate link. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.Joseph Markos, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Sri.Jose Joseph, on instructions, submitted that it will be upto the petitioner to file the stay petitions before the third respondent, who in turn, will transmit the stay petitions to the second respondent. The said submission is recorded.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and after appreciating the rival submissions made across the Bar, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:
(i) It will be upto the petitioner to file the stay petitions in Exts.P2 and P3 appeals before the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (ii) If the petitioner prefers the stay petitions as directed above, the third respondent shall transmit the stay petitions to the second respondent, in accordance with the procedure established by law. (iii) The second respondent shall on receipt of the stay petitions, consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the stay petitions. (iv) Needless to mention, if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same.
(v) Until such time orders are passed on the proposed stay petitions, provided the petitioner completes the exercise as directed by this Court, the respondents are directed to defer further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1, P3 and P5. C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/25-07
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
