Case LawHigh Court › By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera...

By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon

High Court 19 Nov 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
19 Nov 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon, the High Court (2018) 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 MONDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1940WP(C).No. 37502 of 2018 PETITIONER: USAPH K.MOOSAAGED 52 YEARS S/O MOOSA, PROPRIETOR, M/S RAHMANIA TRADERS, 12/10, KAMMANTHARA HOUSE, VANDAZHI P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD -678 541. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Assailing the assessment proceedings, the petitioner, a dealer under theIncome Tax, filed an appeal before the 2[nd] respondent. Now, assailing the Ext.P4conditional interim order the 2[nd] respondent passed, the petitioner has filed thiswrit petition. 2. After initially setting out the petitioner's financial difficulties, thelearned counsel nevertheless pleads for some more time to comply with thedirections in the Ext.P4: to deposit 20% of the demanded tax by 31-10-2018. 3. I stress the obvious: this court never revels in interfering with theTribunal's discretion in imposing any condition to sustain a stay, moreparticularly when it has statutory sanction. Nevertheless, given the persistentplea the petitioner's counsel advanced that the petitioner has been facing acutefinancial problems, this court may take a considerate view of the situation. 4. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition holding that the petitioner shalldeposit the amount, as directed in the Ext.P4, in three equal monthlyinstallments, starting from December 2018. Until then, the Ext.P4 will protectthe petitioner. And thereafter, if the petitioner deposits the amount, the Tribunalmay proceed further with the case. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P1 ACOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FORTHE YEAR 2013-14.THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 ACOPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FORTHE YEAR 2013-14.THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3 ACOPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE mpm
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan