AJU JOHN ZACHARIAH, vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, following its previous Division Bench judgments in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and subsequent cases like W.P.(C).No.523/2020, ordered that the 2nd appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) shall ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without much delay and within a reasonable time frame to be fixed by the appellate authority. Crucially, the Court directed that until the final orders are passed disposing of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself but provided interim relief pending the statutory appeal. The operative direction is to keep coercive steps in abeyance and to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Aju John Zachariah, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and seeking directions for the disposal of his statutory appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P5) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer, respectively. The petitioner sought to prevent the enforcement of demands under the assessment order and requested the appellate authorities to pass orders on his appeal and stay petition after providing a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The petition was filed against the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Officer.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the respondents should be commanded not to enforce the demands under the assessment order (Ext.P1) in any manner? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents should be commanded to pass orders on the petitioner's statutory appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P5) after affording a reasonable opportunity to present his case, at the earliest? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner contended that coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax should be kept in abeyance until a final decision is rendered by the appellate authority. The petitioner relied on the dictum laid down by a Full Bench of the High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] and a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019, which held that insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in similar circumstances. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the provided judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to not enforce the demands under Exts.P1 assessment order in any manner and (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pass orders on Ext.P3 statutory appeal and Ext.P5 petition for stay of operation of the impugned orders after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present their case, at the earliest. (iii) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, necessary, proper and just in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and (iv) to allow this Writ petition (Civil) with costs to the petitioner.”
Heard Sri. Aswin Gopakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents.
In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has taken the view that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as a condition for grant of stay, need not be insisted in cases as in the instant one and that the Division Bench, for reasons stated therein, has ordered that it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutory
WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) 3 appeal at the earliest and that until the final decision is rendered by the appellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax shall be kept in abeyance in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has also dealt with the reasons for taking such a view for making such an interim arrangement pending disposal of the main appeal by the statutory appellate authority concerned. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has been followed by this Court in a series of other cases as in the judgment dated 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C).No.523/2020. Accordingly, following the line of directions and orders already passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 as well as various other judgments rendered by this Court, following the said directions and orders of the Division Bench in the matter of the interim arrangement till the disposal of the main statutory appeal, etc., following orders and directions are issued: It is ordered that the 2nd appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P3 appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by the said appellate
WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) 4 authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P3-appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the abovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS
WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) 5
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026