MALLIDI SHESHADRI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP/3732/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01006463202618 February 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted the submission of the revenue that appeals are processed chronologically, with exceptions for specific directions or urgent cases. The revenue also suggested that the petitioner could file an application for early hearing if they had a peculiar grievance. In light of this stand by the respondents, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file an application or request for early hearing. The Department is to consider such an application and pass appropriate orders. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, nor did it direct a specific timeframe for disposal beyond suggesting the petitioner seek early hearing.

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 dispose of his appeal against an assessment order dated 01/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner requested the appeal be decided expeditiously, preferably within three months. The respondents, including the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer, and the Union of India, were represented. The assessment order was passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal expeditiously within three months, as prayed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued for an expeditious and time-bound disposal of his appeal. The revenue, through its counsel, contended that appeals are taken up chronologically, subject to court directions, high pitch demands, and remand cases. They argued that no appeal should 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:9856 WP No. 3732 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3732 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. MALLIDI SHESHADRI AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT: 35, 7TH BLOCK, BHAGIRATHI NAGAR, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560085, 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, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9856 WP No. 3732 of 2026 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 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) DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 01/02/2024 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016- 17, 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:9856 WP No. 3732 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for issuance of 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 01.02.2024 for the assessment year 2016-2017 expeditiously in a time bound manner preferably within a period of 3 months. 2. 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:9856 WP No. 3732 of 2026 3. In light of the stand taken by the respondent, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file application/request for early hearing, which may be considered by the Department and appropriate orders passed. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →