ZAINUL ABID vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the third respondent (NFAC) to provide the petitioner with a link to upload the stay petition within one week of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Upon receiving the link, the petitioner was granted a further period of one week to file/upload the stay petition. If the stay petition was uploaded, the NFAC was directed to consider and dispose of it in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court also stipulated that if a conditional order was proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Crucially, until an order was passed on the stay petition, and provided the petitioner complied with the stipulated timelines, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order and demand notice were to stand deferred. The court did not leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Zainul Abid, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the third respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), to provide a link for filing a stay petition. The petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P3) on November 12, 2022, challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a demand notice (Ext.P2) issued by the first respondent. However, the petitioner had not filed a stay petition at the time of filing the appeal and now wished to file one due to the issuance of the demand notice. The petitioner was unable to upload the stay petition as no link was provided. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in an identical situation.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the third respondent to provide a link to upload a stay petition in an appeal filed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, when such a link was not initially provided. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is entitled to the benefit of a previous judgment (Ext.P4) of the High Court, which directed the third respondent to provide a link for uploading a stay petition in a similar situation. The petitioner contended that the absence of a link prevents him from filing the necessary stay petition, despite having filed the main appeal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel appeared before the court, but no specific arguments or contentions were recorded in the judgment regarding the provision of the link or the maintainability of the writ petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the third respondent to provide the petitioner with a link in order to prefer the stay petition in Ext.P3 appeal.
The petitioner's case is that, he has preferred Ext.P3 appeal challenging Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 demand notice passed by the first respondent. However, at the time of filing, the petitioner did not file the stay petition. Now, the petitioner is desirous of filing the stay petition since the respondents have issued Ext.P2 demand notice. But, as there is no link provided to the petitioner, he is unable to upload the stay petition. This Court in an identical situation, by Ext.P4 judgment, has directed the third respondent to provide the petitioner therein with a link to upload the stay petition. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.Dheeraj Krishnan Perot, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 appeal as early as on 12.11.2022, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:
(i) The third respondent is directed to provide the petitioner with a link, to upload the stay petition, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (ii) On receipt of the link, the petitioner shall file/upload the stay petition within a further period of one week. (iii) If the petitioner uploads the stay petition, the third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iv) Needless to mention, if the third respondent proposes to pass a conditional order, he shall state the reason for the same. (v) Until such time orders are passed on the stay petition, provided the petitioner complies with the time period fixed by this Court, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 shall stand deferred. C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/21-06
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
