M/S.RAJESH MATHEW AND COMPNAY, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, while acknowledging that it ordinarily should not interfere in such matters, decided to dispose of the writ petition in the interest of justice. The Court issued a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take a decision on the application for stay (Ext.P4) filed along with the appeal (Ext.P3). This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court stipulated that this decision must be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order. The issue of the merits of the appeal itself was left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Rajesh Mathew and Company, represented by its Managing Partner, Rajesh Mathew, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction to the appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to dispose of an appeal and an interim application for stay. This appeal was filed against an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Aluva. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay application (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for the disposal of an appeal and stay application by the appellate authority, and if so, what directions should be issued? (Question of procedure and administrative oversight). The petitioner argued for a direction to the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of their pending appeal and stay application. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The Court noted that it ought not to have interfered but did so in the interest of justice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and interim application preferred against the assessment order issued by the second respondent - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Though this Court ought not to have interfered, but in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 application for stay filed along with Ext.P3 appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE
WP(C).No.8279 OF 2020(H) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15-12-2019 EXHIBIT P2OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15-12- 2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDNET EXHIBIT P5OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-2-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SERVED ON 4.3.2020 //// P.A TO JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
