By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
High Court
15 Mar 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
15 Mar 2019
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 (2019) decided the matter.
Decision: If such payment is effected there willbe a stay of recovery till the stay application is disposed of .The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1940WP(C).No. 7541 of 2019
PETITIONER:
THOMAS DANIEL,AGED 64 YEARSS/O.DANIEL THOMAS, INDIKATTIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 698.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
SMT THUSHARA JAMES-GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 7541 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, impugning an order of stay in a petitionfiled in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has approached this Court. A conditional stay wasgranted on payment of 20% the demand on or before15.03.2019.
2. The petitioner's case is that the orders were passedwithout any reason and the petitioners arguments were notconsidered. The learned standing counsel for the Income TaxAuthority would submit that petitioner has not canvassed anyground for an absolute stay in the application and exercisingdiscretion the appellate authority only ordered payment of20% of the demand.
3. I am of the view that one more opportunity should be
given to the petitioner to urge the grounds for an absolutestay on condition. The Petitioner shall pay Rs.50 lakhs on or
WP(C).No. 7541 of 2019
before 30.03.2019. If the petitioner makes such payment, thestay application shall be re-considered within six weeks afterhearing the petitioner. If such payment is effected there willbe a stay of recovery till the stay application is disposed of .The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
JS
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUEJUDGE
WP(C).No. 7541 of 2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P2
COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P3
COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P4
COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5
COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM (RELEVANT PORTION)
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.