KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. C-1741 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the requirement of a link to move applications in pending appeals is a facet of the right of access to a court of law, which is a fundamental right. The absence of such a link is contrary to the fundamental rights of every individual. The Court emphasized that the Income Tax Department, particularly the Faceless Appeal Centre, must provide an electronic link for appellants to file necessary interim applications, ensuring proper access to justice. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to make available a link to upload stay petitions within four weeks of receiving the judgment. If the petitioner uploads a stay application after the link is provided, it must be considered and disposed of within two months of uploading. Until the stay application is disposed of, all recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kannur Building Materials Co-operative Society Ltd., challenged an order passed under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi. However, at the time of filing the appeal, no stay application was filed. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the total demand for the stay to be considered. The petitioner's grievance in the writ petition was the inability to file a stay application before the Appellate Authority due to the absence of a functional link in the faceless appeal regime, which they contended prejudiced their interests.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the absence of an electronic link to upload stay petitions in pending appeals before the Faceless Appeal Centre violates the fundamental right of access to justice for assessees? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the absence of a link to upload stay petitions in their pending appeal before the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) prejudiced their interests. They contended that the Appellate Authority is the competent authority to grant a stay and that the lack of a mechanism to file such an application in the faceless appeal regime deprives them of proper access to a court of law for redressal of their grievances. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax, appeared for the respondents. However, no specific contentions made by the revenue are recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Challenging an order issued under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P3. At the time the appeal was preferred, petitioner had not filed any application for stay. In the meantime, petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount equivalent to 20% of the total demand as per Ext.P4 for considering the stay by the assessing officer.
The grievance raised in the writ petition is that petitioner is unable to file an application for stay before the Appellate Authority, who alone, according to him is competent to grant stay of the order impugned in appeal. It is further pointed out that after the Faceless Appeal regime was brought in, there is a lack of opportunity to prefer a stay petition in a pending appeal. Absence of a link to WP(C) NO. 5100 OF 2022 3 upload the stay petition is prejudicial to the interests of the assessees.
I have heard Sri.C.A.Jojo, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax.
The requirement to have a link to move applications in pending appeals is a facet of the right of access to a court of law. Absence of such a link is contrary to the fundamental rights of every individual. It is essential that the Income Tax Department, especially the Faceless Appeal Centre make provisions for providing electronic link to the appellants to file necessary interim applications, so that litigants get proper access to a court of law for redressal of their grievances. The right of access to a court of law available to a litigant cannot be deprived by an absence of link to upload interim applications.
In such a view of the matter, I direct the 2nd respondent to make available within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment a link to upload the stay petitions to be filed by the petitioner for filing a stay petition in the pending appeal. If after making available such a link, the petitioner uploads any application for stay as contemplated under law, within a WP(C) NO. 5100 OF 2022 4 period of two weeks thereafter, the said application shall be considered and disposed of by the 2nd respondent, within an outer period of two months from the date of uploading of the stay petition. Till such time, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM
WP(C) NO. 5100 OF 2022 5
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 201
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Santosh Kumar Bhogi, Visakhapatnam vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 253/VIZ/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Raj Construction, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward TDS-2, VadodaraITA 327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Himanshusinhji Jyotendrasinhji Jadeja… vs DCIT/ACIT Circle-1(1), RKT, RajkotITA 325/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
