KUTHUBUDHEEN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order dated March 20, 2020, was not sustainable. The Court noted that the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in a previous judgment (W.A No.1529 of 2019), had remanded matters to the Income Tax Authority to decide stay applications in accordance with law without imposing the condition of depositing 20% of the demand. The Court expressed concern that authorities were not adhering to these directions, compelling assessees to approach the High Court. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the stay application expeditiously, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the Revenue. The demand raised was ordered to be kept in abeyance until the stay application was adjudicated, and the interim order would remain in force until then. The Court requested the Revenue to sensitize officers regarding the Division Bench's directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, an individual assessee, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 20, 2020, which disposed of an interim application filed along with an appeal against an assessment order for assessment year 2017-18. The assessment order was dated November 28, 2019. The petitioner contended that the stay application was disposed of without an opportunity of hearing and imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the demand. The petitioner had sought an adjournment. The Revenue argued that the petitioner did not appear before the authority, leaving no option but to dispose of the application based on a circular.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing of the stay application without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, subject to a condition of depositing 20% of the demand, in light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A No.1529 of 2019? Assessee's contentions: The assessment order was challenged on various grounds. The stay application was disposed of in the absence of the petitioner despite a request for adjournment. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A No.1529 of 2019, which held that the circular dated July 31, 2017, issued by the Income Tax Department, has no binding effect and no such provision exists in the statute. Revenue's contentions: The petitioner did not appear before the authority, and therefore, there was no other option but to dispose of the application by relying on the circular.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, an individual assessee under the Income Tax Act has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.03.2020 Ext.P4, whereby the interim application filed along with the appeal preferred against the assessment order for the assessment years 2017-18 dated 28.11.2019, has been disposed of without affording opportunity of hearing subject to the condition of depositing 20% of demand.
Against the assessment order, Ext.P1 dated 28.11.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18, petitioner preferred an appeal and stay application Exts.P2 and P3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the assessment order was challenged on various grounds taken in the appeal but fact of the matter is that though the petitioner had sought the indulgence of the Commissioner of Income Tax for adjournment, despite that in the absence of the petitioner, the stay application has been disposed of subject to the WP(C).No.10400 OF 2020(Y) 3 condition as noticed above. In support of his submission, he relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A No.1529 of 2019, whereby it is held that the circular dated 31.07.2017 issued by Income Tax Department do not have any binding effect and there is no such provision in the statute.
Issue notice before admission. Sri.Christopher Abraham accepts notice on behalf of the Income Tax. He submits that the petitioner did not appear before the authority dealing with the same and no other option but to dispose of the same, by relying upon the circular, referred above.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The facts as noticed above are not in dispute. Against the assessment order, the appeal and stay application have been referred.
The Division Bench of this Court after having noticed the circular, ibid, remanded the matter to the Income Tax Authority to consider and decide the stay application, in accordance with law without calling upon the assessee to comply with the condition of deposit of 20% of WP(C).No.10400 OF 2020(Y) 4 demanded amount. The direction in the aforementioned judgment is still in force and has not been set aside so far. It is intriguing that either the Assessing Authorities while exercising the powers under 226 of Constitution of India or the Appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax are not adhering to the directions passed by the division Bench of this Court and have been passing the orders of such nature compelling the assessee to approach this Court. I request Sri.Christopher Abraham to sensitize the officers regarding the directions contained in the Division Bench that the assessees are not unnecessarily compelled to approach this Court without any fault. This Court in Sanguine of the fact that the aforementioned directions henceforth onwards would be complied with by the authorities in letter and spirit. The order impugned leaves no manner of doubt that the stay application has been dismissed in the absence of the assessee or representative with the imposition of condition. In view of what has been noticed, the impugned order Ext.P4 dated 20.03.2020 is not sustainable and hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner
WP(C).No.10400 OF 2020(Y) 5 of Income Tax to decide the stay application as expeditiously, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the representative of the Revenue. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the demand raised is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim order would remain in force till the adjudication of the stay application. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak
WP(C).No.10400 OF 2020(Y) 6
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026