KELATHPARAMBIL UMMERMUHAMMED SHAREEF vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances and the limited nature of the relief sought, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any demand pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kelathparambil Ummer Muhammed Shareef, faced an assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and simultaneously submitted an application for a stay on the demand arising from the assessment order. The petitioner apprehended that recovery proceedings might be initiated before his stay application was decided. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate proceedings to direct the disposal of a stay application? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious consideration and disposal of his stay application (Ext.P3) by the appellate authority (2nd respondent). He also sought a direction to keep the demand arising from the assessment order (Ext.P1) in abeyance until a decision on the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT
Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P3 application for stay. Petitioner apprehends that steps may be taken to recover amounts due under Ext.P1, pending consideration of Ext.P3 application for stay, by the appellate authority.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel also.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, any demand pursuant to Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P.,JUDGE ajt
WP(C) NO. 39110 OF 2022 3
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
