THAYYIL BALAKRISHNAN PRADEEP vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala directed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court further directed that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thayyil Balakrishnan Pradeep, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2013-2014. He filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) and simultaneously filed a petition for stay of proceedings (Ext.P3). The petitioner apprehends coercive action before his stay petition is considered and has therefore filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 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, given the pendency of his appeal against the assessment order for AY 2013-2014. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive proceedings should be stayed until his application for stay of the assessment order is considered by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner relies on the principle that a taxpayer should not face recovery actions before their appeal and stay applications are decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue would abide by the court's order regarding 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 2013-2014, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st 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 with a direction.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of two 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. GOPINATH P.
JUDGE ats
W.P.(C) No.19812/2022
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
