M/S. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider the applications for condonation of delay and stay petitions filed by the petitioner in relation to the appeals against assessment and penalty orders for the assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18, and 2018-19. This consideration is to be done within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, any steps for recovery of amounts due under the challenged orders are to remain suspended until orders are passed on these applications. The appellate authority is to consider the stay petitions on merits only if the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeals themselves.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Kerala State Housing Board, is challenging multiple assessment and penalty orders for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18, and 2018-19. For each of these orders, the petitioner has filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with applications for condonation of delay and stay petitions. The petitioner sought a direction to keep the demands arising from these orders in abeyance until the appellate authority decides on the interlocutory applications. The respondent department had no objection to such a direction being issued.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal should direct the appellate authority to consider the applications for condonation of delay and stay petitions filed by the petitioner in various appeals against assessment and penalty orders for assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18, and 2018-19. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the demands arising from the assessment and penalty orders should be kept in abeyance until the appellate authority decides the interlocutory applications (condonation of delay and stay) filed by the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent department had no objection to the direction being issued.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13. Exhibit P3 order imposing penalty for the very same assessment year, Ext.P6 assessment in respect of the assessment year 2014-15, Ext.P9 assessment order in respect of the assessment year 2017-18, Ext.P12 assessment in respect of the assessment year 2018-19 and Ext.P15 penalty order of the very same year. In respect of the Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal. However, no stay petition has been filed as there is no demand consequent on setting off losses. However, there was an application for condonation of delay which is filed along with the appeal memorandum. In respect of Ext.P3 order imposing penalty the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition along with an application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal memorandum. In respect of Ext.P6 assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 the petitioner has filed Ext.p7 appeal along with Ext.P8 stay petition, there is an application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal memorandum. In respect of Ext.P9 assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 appeal along with Ext.P11 stay application, there is an application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal memorandum. For the assessment year 2018-19 the petitioner has filed Ext.P13 appeal against the order of assessment along with Ext.P14 stay petition, there is an application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal memorandum. For the very same assessment year, i.e.
-3- 2018-19 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P16 appeal against Ext.p15 order imposing penalty along with Ext.P17 applications for stay. There is an application for condonation of delay filed along with Ext.P16 appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the demands in respect of the orders of assessments and the demand under orders of penalty may kept in abeyance till the appellate authority decides the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner in various appeals.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department has no objection in such direction being issued.
Accordingly this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the application for condonation of delay filed in Ext.P2 appeal, the application for condonation of delay filed in Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition filed in Ext.P4 appeal and the application for condonation of delay filed in Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P8 application for stay filed in Ext.P7 appeal and application for condonation of delay filed in Ext.P10 appeal and Ext.P11 stay petition filed in Ext.P10 appeal and the application for condonation of delay filed in Et.P13 appeal and Ext.P14 stay petition filed in Ext.P13 appeal and the application for condonation of delay filed Ext.P16 appeal and Ext.P17 stay application filed in Ext.P16 appeal after affording any an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on the applications as above, any steps for recovery of the amounts due under the orders of assessments/orders of penalty mentioned in this judgment including Ext.P18 proceedings shall remain suspended.
-4- It is made clear that the appellate authority needs to consider the stay petitions on merits only if he decides to condone the delay in filing the appeals. GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG -5-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
