P vs. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such a decision is taken by the appellate authority, all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather ensured a timely consideration of the stay application and provided interim protection.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. PVS Builders & Developers, is aggrieved by an assessment order dated for assessment year 2018-19, issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, and simultaneously filed a petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order. The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings before their stay petition is considered and has therefore filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection from coercive proceedings pending the disposal of their stay petition before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the appellate authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings being initiated against them before their petition for stay of the assessment order is considered by the appellate authority, and seeks to prevent such action. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records submissions from the counsel for the respondents (Revenue), but does not explicitly detail their arguments regarding the specific issue of coercive proceedings or the stay petition. However, their presence and participation indicate a defense against the petitioner's plea.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Tax Act 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment issued under the Income Tax Act 1961 relating to assessment year 2018- 19, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A petition for stay of the proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3 before the Appellate Authority. 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 of with a direction.
WP(C) NO. 29453 OF 2021 3
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM
WP(C) NO. 29453 OF 2021 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
