LABEEB MUSLIMVEETIL KARAKKATT vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala directed the third respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, 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 upload the stay petition. The third respondent was further directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court also stipulated that if the third respondent proposed to pass any conditional order on the stay petition, reasons must be provided. Crucially, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order and demand notice were deferred until an order was passed on the stay petition, provided the petitioner complied with the stipulated timelines. The court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition based on the pleadings and materials on record, noting the petitioner had already filed the appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Labee b Muslimveetil Karakkat, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the third respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, to provide a link for filing a stay petition. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P5) against an assessment order (Ext.P3) and demand notice (Ext.P4) issued by the first respondent. While filing the appeal on October 26, 2022, the petitioner did not initially file a stay petition but now wishes to do so due to the demand notice. The petitioner contended that they were unable to upload the stay petition due to the absence of a provided link. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment (Ext.P6) from the same 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, given the circumstances. The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the benefit of the previous judgment (Ext.P6) which directed the respondent to provide a link for uploading a stay petition in an identical situation. The petitioner further contended that they are unable to proceed with filing the stay petition due to the lack of a provided link. The revenue (respondents) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, they were represented by counsel, indicating their participation in the proceedings.
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.P5 appeal.
The petitioner's case is that, he has preferred Ext.P5 appeal challenging Ext.P3 assessment order and Ext.P4 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.P4 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.P6 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.P5 appeal as early as on 26.10.2022, 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. Immediately on receipt of the link, the petitioner shall within a further period of one week, upload the stay petition. (ii) 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. (iii) Needless to mention, if the third respondent proposes to pass any conditional order, he shall state the reason for the same. (iv) 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.P3 and P4 shall stand deferred. C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/21-06
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
