BHASKAR THATTARUTHODIYAL NAIR vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner are to be kept in abeyance. The court found that this direction would adequately address the petitioner's apprehension of coercive action pending the adjudication of his appeal and stay application. The core principle applied is ensuring procedural fairness and preventing undue hardship by keeping recovery actions suspended during the pendency of a stay application.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Bhaskar Thattarudiyil Nair, is aggrieved by an order of penalty for the assessment year 2017-2018, which is Ext.P1. He has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), New Delhi, as Ext.P2. Additionally, a petition for stay of proceedings related to the assessment order has been filed as Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before his stay petition is adjudicated. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition seeking intervention.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of his stay petition pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the right to a timely hearing). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contends that he faces the threat of coercive proceedings before his stay petition is considered, necessitating judicial intervention to prevent such actions until a decision on the stay is made. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay petition or the writ petition itself. The court proceeded to pass an order based on the submissions of the petitioner and the respondents' representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of penalty relating to assessment year 2017-2018, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd 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 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM
WP(C) NO. 3382 OF 2022 3
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
