PUZHAKKAL BLOCK MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while considering the submissions from both sides, was of the opinion that the writ petition itself could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Puzhakkal Block Motor Vehicle Owners Multi Purpose Co-operative Society, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2015-16, marked as Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this order before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, as per Ext.P2. Additionally, a petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has been filed as Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before their stay petition is considered, leading to the filing of this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of their stay petition (Ext.P3) within a specific timeframe, given their apprehension of coercive proceedings before the stay is decided? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, represented by its Secretary, argued that they are facing coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and have filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3). They apprehend that recovery action might be initiated before their stay petition is adjudicated, necessitating intervention by the Court. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, including the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, were represented. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue.
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 2015-16, 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 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 2nd 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 ajt
WP(C) NO. 17611 OF 2022 3
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
