MORNING STAR MEDICAL CENTRE, ADIMALY vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner should be granted a similar relief as in similar matters where directions were issued to the National Faceless Appeal Centre to provide a link for assessees to upload stay petitions. The Court directed respondents 3 to 5 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre) to provide a link to the petitioner to upload an application for stay within four weeks of receiving the judgment. The petitioner was then to upload the stay application within two weeks thereafter. The Competent Appellate Authority was directed to consider and dispose of the stay application expeditiously, within six weeks of its uploading. The appellate authority was also at liberty to consider the appeal itself. Crucially, until the stay application was considered, all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Morning Star Medical Centre, Adimaly, had been granted exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, until assessment year 2018-2019. For assessment year 2018-2019, the exemption was denied by the 1st respondent, who issued an order of assessment (Ext.P1). The petitioner filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (Ext.P2). Initially, no stay petition was filed as there was no threat of recovery. However, the petitioner later apprehended coercive recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal, which would cause prejudice. The petitioner sought either a time-bound disposal of the appeal or an opportunity to file a stay petition, noting that the National Faceless Appeal Scheme did not provide a mechanism to upload stay petitions after the appeal was filed.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a stay petition before the appellate authority, considering the National Faceless Appeal Scheme's limitations on uploading such applications post-appeal filing? (Question of procedure and administrative feasibility) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents were proposing to initiate recovery proceedings during the pendency of their appeal, which would cause significant prejudice. They contended that they should be given an opportunity to file a stay petition before the appellate authority, as the current Faceless Appeal Scheme did not allow for uploading stay petitions after the appeal commencement. They also sought a time-bound disposal of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are recorded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Though the writ petition has been preferred challenging Ext.P1 order of assessment issued by the 1st respondent; during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to an opportunity for preferring a stay petition before the appellate authority.
Until the assessment year 2018-2019, petitioner was granted exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, for the assessment year 2018-2019, 1st respondent denied the exemption and issued an order of assessment as per Ext.P1. Challenging the said order, an appeal has been preferred before the National Faceless Appeal Centre as evident from Ext.P2. Since there was no threat
WP(C) NO. 5808 OF 2022 3 of recovery proceedings against the petitioner, at the time when the appeal was filed, petitioner had not sought for a stay.
The grievance of the petitioner now brought to the notice of this Court is that, during the pendency of the appeal, respondents are proposing to initiate recovery proceedings and the same will cause great prejudice to the petitioner, unless the proceedings pending before the appellate authority are either completed in a time bound manner or an opportunity for preferring a stay petition before the appellate authority is obtained. As far as the latter is concerned, there is no opportunity for the petitioner to upload the stay petition after the commencement of the National Faceless Appeal Scheme.
In similar matters this Court had, taking note of the prejudice being caused to the assessees, have directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre to WP(C) NO. 5808 OF 2022 4 provide a link to the assessees to enable them to upload stay petitions in pending appeals.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner should also be given a similar relief.
Accordingly there will be a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to provide a link, to the petitioner to upload an application for stay, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Once a link is provided to the petitioner, the stay application as sought for must be uploaded within two weeks thereafter.
If such directions are complied with, the Competent Appellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the stay application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of uploading of the application for stay.
WP(C) NO. 5808 OF 2022 5
Despite the uploading of stay application, the appellate authority will be at liberty to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal itself. Needless to mention that till the application for stay is considered as directed above, all coercive proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/22/02//2022
WP(C) NO. 5808 OF 2022 6
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026