By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon
High Court
06 Feb 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
06 Feb 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 3428 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
M/S.NORWALK CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LTD.V-302 AND 303, SHORNUR ROAD, NEAR VIYYUR BRIDGE THRISSUR-680022, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.V.K.ABDUL AZEEZ.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(2), THRISSUR-680001.
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR-680001.3THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICERDEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAXAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGARTHRISSUR-680001.
SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added TaxAct, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1assessment order, before the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner has also filed astay petition in the appeal. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities aretaking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the staypetition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader.
3.I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedyof filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed a stay petition. Proceduralfairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps,until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.
Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondentauthority to defer coercive steps until the 2[nd] respondent considers the staypetition. I also hope that the 2[nd] respondent will dispose of the stay petitionexpeditiously.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 17.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2NDRESPONDENT - 2015-16 DATED 14.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT- 2015-16 DATED 31.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P4COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2019.sd
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.