GEORGE ANTONY vs. THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, while acknowledging the existence of statutory remedies, found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction. The court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, George Antony, is aggrieved by an order of assessment dated April 11, 2022, for the assessment year 2015-16. He has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, and a petition for stay of proceedings. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to expedite the consideration of his stay petition and to keep coercive proceedings in abeyance.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal and stay petition are available to the assessee? The petitioner's contention is that he apprehends coercive proceedings being initiated against him before his stay petition is considered by the appellate authority. He seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on coercive measures until then. The revenue's contention, as implied by their appearance and the court's consideration of submissions, is likely that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedies available and that a writ petition may not be the appropriate forum for such grievances, especially when the appellate authority is seized of the matter. However, the judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2015-16, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition.
Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
