KELATHPARAMBIL UMMER MUHAMMED SHEREEF vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that any demand pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The principle established is that the High Court can intervene to ensure timely consideration of stay applications by appellate authorities, especially when recovery is apprehended, and can grant interim relief by keeping the demand in abeyance.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kelathparambil Ummer Muhammed Shareef, is challenging an order of assessment for the assessment year 2016-17, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, along with an application for stay of demand. The petitioner apprehends recovery proceedings for the amounts due under the assessment order while his stay application is pending. The High Court of Kerala considered the limited relief sought by the petitioner.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of a stay application pending before the appellate authority, when recovery proceedings are apprehended. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on his stay application expeditiously and for a stay of demand pending the decision on the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel was heard, but does not detail the specific arguments made by the revenue.
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
JUDGMENT Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 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. 39273 OF 2022 3
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
