MULAMOOTTIL FINANCIERS LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT 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 stay petitions (Ext.P7 and P8) within a period of three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders (Ext.P1 and P2) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petitions. This provides interim relief to the assessee by preventing immediate recovery actions while their appeals and stay applications are being processed. The principle established is that appellate authorities should be given a reasonable time to decide stay applications, and coercive measures should be withheld during this period.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mulamoottil Financiers Ltd., is aggrieved by assessment orders for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, referred to as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. The petitioner has filed appeals before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Concurrently, petitions for stay of proceedings arising from these assessment orders were filed as Ext.P7 and P8. The petitioner's primary concern is the apprehension of coercive recovery actions being initiated before their stay petitions are adjudicated. Consequently, the petitioner has approached the High Court by way of this writ petition seeking intervention.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of coercive proceedings pending the disposal of their appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are facing apprehension of coercive proceedings being initiated pursuant to the assessment orders even before their stay petitions are considered by the appellate authority. They sought a direction from the Court to prevent such actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents. However, the Court considered the submissions of both parties before passing its order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 orders of assessment relating to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016- 17, petitioner has preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as Ext.P7 and P8. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions for stay are considered. Hence this writ petition.
Having considered the submissions of the learned 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.P7 and Ext.P8
WP(C) NO. 23378 OF 2021 3 stay petitions, within period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such decision is taken, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 and P2 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM
WP(C) NO. 23378 OF 2021 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
