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

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: 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, 1940 WP(C).No. 7546 of 2019 PETITIONER: M/S.POPULAR TRADERS,POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, THOMAS DANIEL, AGED 63 YEARS 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. 7546 of 2019 -2- JUDGMENT The petitioner, impugning a conditional order of stay passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), has approached thisCourt. The total demand is Rs. 44,82,72,598/-. Ext. P4 is the order.Petitioner was directed to remit 20% of the demand on or before15.03.2019 as a condition for stay. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatpetitioner cannot pay such a huge amount. The amount would cometo more than Rs. 9 Crore. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am ofthe view that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount directed inthe conditional order in two instalments. First of such intalmentshall be paid on or before 31.03.2019 and balance 50% within afurther period of one month. Impugned order accordingly modifiedas above. The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE WP(C).No. 7546 of 2019 -3- 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 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES.
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