MOHASIN PARAMBATHKANDI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the 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 against the petitioner be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific issues regarding the merits of the assessment order or the appeal were decided, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the stay petition.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mohasin Parambathkandi, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13, marked as Ext.P1. He has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent, as Ext.P2, and a petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order, Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings before his stay petition is considered and has therefore filed this writ petition. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of his stay petition before coercive proceedings are initiated against him, concerning assessment year 2012-13, under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that he has filed an appeal and a stay petition and apprehends coercive action before the stay petition is adjudicated. He seeks a direction to prevent such action until the stay petition is considered. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the submissions of the counsel for the respondents were considered, but does not detail their specific arguments regarding the stay petition or coercive proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, relating to assessment year 2012-13, 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.
WP(C) NO. 19618 OF 2021 3
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd 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 against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/02/11//2021
WP(C) NO. 19618 OF 2021 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
