By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
High Court
06 Feb 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
06 Feb 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. sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd APPENDIX
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
THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947WP(C).No.3207 OF 2020(A)
PETITIONER:
G. SIVANKUMAR,AGED 37 YEARSPROPRIETOR, M/S. AYYA TRADERS, VADAKANTHARA ROAD, BIGBAZAR, PALAKKAD-678014.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014.
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680021.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH. SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.3207 of 2020
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6[th] day of February, 2020
JUDGMENT
Against Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders, the petitioner has filed Exts.P2 andP2(a) appeals along with Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions. The petitioner'sgrievance is that during the pendency of the stay petitions, coerciverecovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority forrecovery of the disputed amounts.
2.Heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe respondents.
3.After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts andcircumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2[nd]respondent shall take up the matters in Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay applicationsfiled in Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals and after affording reasonableopportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorisedrepresentative/ counsel, if any, shall pass orders on the stay applicationswithout much delay, preferably within a period of two months from thedate of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders arethus passed on the abovesaid stay applications, further coercive steps for
enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
acd
APPENDIX
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.