MALLIDI SHESHADRI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of the stand taken by the respondents. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the petitioner's request for a specific timeline. Instead, the court reserved liberty for the petitioner to file an application or request for early hearing. The Authority (Respondent No. 1) is expected to consider this request and pass appropriate orders. The court's decision is procedural, allowing the petitioner to pursue an early hearing through the prescribed channels, rather than mandating a specific disposal period. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of based on the submissions made.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mallidi Sheshadri, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), to expeditiously dispose of his appeal. The appeal was filed against an assessment order dated 07/03/2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner requested the disposal to be within a period of three months. The respondents, including the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer, were represented by counsel.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within a specific timeframe (three months) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued for an expeditious and time-bound disposal of his appeal against the assessment order dated 07/03/2023 for AY 2018-19. Revenue's Contention: The department's counsel submitted that appeals are taken up chronologically, subject to court directions, high pitch demands, and remand cases. They argued that appeals cannot be taken up out of turn and that the court should not pass such orders. However, they conceded that if the petitioner had a peculiar grievance, they could file an application for early hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Articles 226, Articles 227
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12926 WP No. 3507 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3507 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. MALLIDI SHESHADRI, SON OF CHENGALARAYA NAIDU, AGE: 54 YEARS RESIDING AT: 35, 7TH BLOCK, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, BHAGIRATHI NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085, KARNATAKA, INDIA. PAN: ASBPS8380C … PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALESHA R. G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12926 WP No. 3507 of 2026 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) ***
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07/03/2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19, IN AN EXPEDITIOUS AND TIME-BOUND MANNER, PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12926 WP No. 3507 of 2026 ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of petitioner's appeal filed against the assessment order dated 07.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 in a time bound manner preferably within a period of three months.
Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the department would submit that the appeals are taken up chronologically subject however to cases where there are certain directions from the Court and where there are high pitch demand and remand cases. Accordingly, it is submitted that no appeal could be taken up, out of turn and the Court may not pass such orders. However, it is submitted that if the petitioner has any peculiar grievance, the petitioner may be reserved liberty to file an application/request for early hearing.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12926 WP No. 3507 of 2026
In light of the stand taken by the respondents, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file application/request for early hearing, which may be considered by the Authority and appropriate orders passed. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
