KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN vs. ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider the stay applications (Exts.P13 to P17) along with any applications for condonation of delay. The Court mandated that orders be passed thereon after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings for amounts due under the assessment orders (Exts.P3 to P7) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay petitions. It was clarified that the appellate authority would only consider the stay petitions on merits if it decides to condone the delay in filing the appeals. No specific finding on the merits of the assessment orders or the delay itself was made by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Koothery Narayanan Vijayan, is challenging assessment orders (Exts.P3 to P7) passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals (Exts.P8 to P12) along with stay applications and delay condonation applications before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The petitioner apprehends that recovery proceedings might continue while the stay petitions are pending. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the timely disposal of these applications.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre should be directed to consider the stay applications (Exts.P13 to P17) along with delay condonation applications, and pass orders thereon after affording a hearing to the petitioner? (Question of procedure and administrative direction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider the pending stay and delay condonation applications. The petitioner also seeks a stay on recovery proceedings until a decision is made on these applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.
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 Exts.P3 to P7 orders of assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18. Being aggrieved by those orders of assessments the petitioner preferred Exts.P8 to P12 appeals along with applications for stay and applications for condonation of delay before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The petitioner apprehends that recovery proceedings may be continued against the petitioner to recover the amounts due under orders of assessment, pending consideration of the stay petition by the National Faceless Appeal Centre.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Department.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider Exts.P13 to P17 applications for stay along with any application filed for condonation of delay and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time as orders are passed on Exts.P13 to P17, any proceedings for recovery of the amounts due under Exts.P3 to P7 orders shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the appellate authority needs to consider Exts.P13 to P17 stay petitions on merits only if it decides to condone the delay in filing the appeal. GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG
W.P (C) No.41882/2022 -3-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026