DEEPESH DIVAKARAN M KUNNATH, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner had exercised his statutory remedy of filing an appeal in a timely manner and had also filed a stay petition. The Court reasoned that procedural fairness dictates that authorities should await the appellate authority's decision on a stay petition before taking further coercive steps. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the 2nd respondent would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court's decision was procedural.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Deepesh Divakaran M Kunnath, a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with his appeal. Alleging that the revenue authorities were taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The writ petition sought to prevent coercive action until the stay petition was considered by the appellate authority.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted his statutory remedies by filing an appeal and a stay petition before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he had filed his appeal and stay petition on time and that the revenue authorities were initiating coercive steps prematurely, before the appellate authority had a chance to rule on the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side. The learned Government Pleader appeared, but their arguments are not detailed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act, on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
WP(C).No. 2166 of 2019 3
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
