By Advs. Sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17149 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.ASHOK KUMAR,INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,3RD FLOOR,AISWARYA BUILDINGS, VALANJAMBALAM,KOCHI-16. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 018 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOCHI.PIN- 682 018 R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.17149/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P2COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. P4COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. P5COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17149 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by theassessing authority on a petition filed by the petitioner not toenforce the demand since the appeal filed by the petitioneragainst the assessment order is pending. Ext.P6 order waspassed directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the balance amountdue in instalments of Rs.10 lakhs from May 2011 to March 2012. According to the petitioner, that order has been passedmechanically following a direction from the Commissioner ofIncome Tax. The petitioner submits that the discretion is vestedwith the 1[st] respondent and the 1[st] respondent ought to haveexercised that discretion by himself without following anydirection from the commissioner. 2.I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of opinion that even if this Court has considered a petition forstay by the petitioner, this would have been the best order thepetitioner would have got. W.P.(C)No.17149/11 In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner andaccordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd