By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2017/27TH ASHADHA, 1939 WA.No. 1486 of 2017 IN WP(C)19971/2017 ---------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19971/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALADATED 16-06-2017 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------- THOMAS DANIEL INDIKATTIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 698 BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLA WARD NO.4, THIRUVALLA- 689 101 WARD NO.4, THIRUVALLA- 689 101 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) KOTTAYAM- 686 001 KOTTAYAM- 686 001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON18-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1486 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18[th] day of July, 2017 Antony Dominic, J. JUDGMENT This appeal arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.19971/17. By the said writ petition, the appellantchallenged Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent, grantingstay of recovery of the tax due from the appellant subject to theappellant remitting 75% of the tax due. By the judgment underappeal, though the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with theorder impugned, the amount payable was reduced to 50%, takingnote of the financial constraints that were urged by the counsel.Learned Single Judge further allowed the appellant to remit theamount in three monthly instalments starting from 15.7.2017. It isthis judgment, which is under challenge before us. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The submissions made before us were all on the merits of the disputes which, according to us, are matters which are to be W.A.No.1486 of 2017 : 2 : urged before the Appellate Authority and it is for that authority toconsider those submissions. Insofar as the quantum fixed by thelearned Single Judge is concerned, judgment under appeal itself givesreasons for the learned Single Judge to sustain the reasoning of theAppellate Authority and also for the reduction in the quantum.Therefore, we see no reason to upset any of these conclusions to thelearned Single Judge. 4. In such circumstances, we declined to entertain this appeal.Appeal fails and it is dismissed. However, taking note of the pendency of this appeal, we allow the appellant to commence payment of the three monthly instalmentdue from 15.8.2017. sd/- JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE