By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
High Court
28 Jan 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
28 Jan 2020
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 (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of.
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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.2263 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER:
THOMAS DANIEL,AGED 62 YEARSS/O.DANIEL THOMAS, INDIKATTIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689698.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-I, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVALLA-689101.CIRCLE-I, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVALLA-689101.
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),KOTTAYAM-686001.KOTTAYAM-686001.
SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 2263 of 2020
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28[th] day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and
Exts.P3 stay petitions. The petitioner's grievance is that during thependency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings havebeen initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputedamounts.
2.Heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmin, the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.After hearing both sides and after taking note of the factsand circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justicethat the 2[nd] respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P-3 stayapplication filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonableopportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorizedrepresentative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on thoseapplications without much delay, preferably within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of thisjudgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delaycondonation and stay application, further coercive steps forenforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of.
Nsd
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 20.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P2
COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2012-13 DATED18.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P3
COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2020.
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.