SHRI.THURTHI ABDULKADER ILLYAS vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, ,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the existence of statutory remedies, found it appropriate to issue a direction in the present writ petition. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) or the competent authority 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 shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The ratio of this decision is that in cases where an assessee apprehends immediate coercive action before the disposal of a stay petition, the High Court may intervene to direct the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and to maintain status quo in the interim.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thurthi Abdulkader Illyas, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19. He has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, and a stay petition. The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to consider his stay petition promptly and to keep coercive proceedings in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal and stay are available to the petitioner? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner is filing this writ petition because he apprehends coercive proceedings being initiated against him even before his stay petition, filed along with the appeal, is considered by the appellate authority. The urgency stems from the fear of immediate recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not object to the court's intervention to direct the consideration of the stay petition.
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 2018-19, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. 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 or the competent authority 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 WP(C) NO. 25920 OF 2021 -3- petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE uu 19.11.2021
WP(C) NO. 25920 OF 2021 -4-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
