PRABHA GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

WTAX/4829/2025HC AllahabadUPHC01502488202522 September 20252 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter could be resolved by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (respondent no.2) to decide the stay application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The Court further directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the demand notice dated July 8, 2025, for Assessment Year 2015-16, until an order is passed on the stay application by respondent no.2. The Court communicated that the order should be immediately conveyed to the concerned authority by the counsel for the respondent. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The writ petitioner filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 in 2022. A stay application was also filed before the Assessing Officer. The petitioner's grievance was that neither the appeal nor the stay application had been decided by the concerned authorities. Despite the pendency of these applications, the revenue was pressing for the recovery of demands. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to decide the appeal and stay application, and to refrain from coercive action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (respondent no.2) to decide the petitioner's appeal and stay application for Assessment Year 2015-16? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of administrative delay and the right to a speedy resolution of appeals). 2. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the Assessing Officer (respondent no.3) to decide the petitioner's stay application for Assessment Year 2015-16? (Question of law and fact, similar to issue 1). 3. Whether coercive action should be restrained against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice dated July 8, 2025, for Assessment Year 2015-16 until the stay application is decided? (Question of law and fact, concerning the balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable harm). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to decide their pending appeal and stay application, and were proceeding with recovery actions without adjudication, causing prejudice. The petitioner relied on the general principles of administrative efficiency and the right to a fair hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4829 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has made the following prayers:- "i. issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to decide the Appeal number NFAC/2013-14/10147185 (Annexure No.9) of petitioner for Assessment Year 2015-16 or Stay Application dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure No.10). ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to decide the Stay Application (Annexure No.11) of petitioner dated 08.07.2023 for Assessment Year 2015-16. iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.3 not to take any covercive action against petitioner in pursuance to Demand Notice dated 08.07.2025 for assessment year 2015-16 (Annexure No.1)." 3. After perusal of the documents, it is clear that the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year 2022. Furthermore, stay application has been filed before the Assessing Officer being respondent No.3 also. None of the applications has been decided by the authorities and without deciding the same, they are pressing for the recovery of the demands. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puneet Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ankur Agarwal, Dhananjay Awasthi Prabha Gupta .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

We are of the view that this matter can be brought to a quietus by directing respondent No.2 being the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi to decide the stay application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from date. 5. This order should be communicated by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent to the authority concerned immediately. 6. Authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of demand notice dated July 8, 2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 till the order in the stay application is passed by respondent No.2. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. September 23, 2025 DKS WTAX No. 4829 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →