LAILA PARASSERI 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 decide Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 revised appeal in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The disposal is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeals. No specific issue was left undecided; the court provided a clear directive for the disposal of the pending appeals.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Laila Parasseri, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of her appeal (Ext.P2) and revised appeal (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These appeals were filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of these appeals. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Tirur, Malappuram, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode, were the respondents. The matter was heard by the High Court on June 3, 2020.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeals filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that her appeals against the assessment order were pending and she sought a direction for their disposal. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the disposal of the appeals. The core issue revolved around the procedural aspect of ensuring the appellate authority decides the pending appeals expeditiously.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNE AY, THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.10878 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER/S: LAILA PARASSERI THEKKATH HOUSE, KIZHISSERI, KUZHIMANNA POST, MALAPPURAM-673641. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANNANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.10878 OF 2020(H) ..2.. JUDGMENT Dated this the 3rd day of June 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 revised appeal preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order Ext.P1. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 revised appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment without insisting on payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per circular of 2017. Till such time a decision is taken on the appeal, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL SB/04/06/2020 JUDGE
WP(C).No.10878 OF 2020(H) ..3..
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
