SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, in its limited writ jurisdiction, disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The court directed the 2nd respondent to take up the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) and to hear and dispose of the stay petition within two months from the date of the order. Furthermore, the court ordered that coercive steps for recovery of any demand shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of ensuring a timely hearing for the stay petition.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of his appeal and stay petition. The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) was also filed. The petitioner sought a direction to the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to dispose of these matters. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The petition was admitted, and standing counsel accepted notice for the respondents. The court noted the limited prayer made by the petitioner.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) should be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order and the accompanying stay petition? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the timely disposal of his appeal and stay petition, implying that there has been an undue delay or that he requires a decision within a reasonable timeframe. The petitioner relies on the general principle of expeditious disposal of appeals. Revenue's Contention: The standing counsel for the respondents accepted notice, indicating the revenue's appearance in the proceedings. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Admit. Standing counsel takes notice for respondents.
The limited prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exts.P2 appeal filed against Ext.P1 assessment order and P3 stay petition. In view of the limited prayer made, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition and hear and dispose of the stay petition within two months. The coercive steps for recovery shall be kept in abeyance till then. T.R. RAVI
JUDGE Pn
WP(C) NO. 13366 OF 2023 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13366/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DTD. 19-03-2022 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18-04-2022 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.NIL
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
