By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
High Court
09 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
09 Mar 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.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.5480 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER:
THE ALANALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE ANK LTD.,NO.F 1178,ALANALLUR,MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678601,RPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,P.SREENIVASAN,AGED 47, S/O SANKARAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case isthat against the order of assessment, Ext.P1 and appellateorder Ext.P2, preferred a second appeal, Ext.P3 before the3[rd] respondent ie., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)along with the interim application, Ext.P4 dated 03.02.2020,till such time, the contemplated coercive measures againstthe petitioner may be kept in abeyance.
2. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the writpetition would not lie as the remedy for the petitioner is topress the pending stay application before the ITAT.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties andapprised the paper book, I am of the view that the pleadingsare bereft of any steps for taking of possession by makingmention or otherwise before the ITAT. Be that as it may,considering the fact that no steps of demand or attachmentproceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act havebeen initiated, I dispose of the writ petition with a directionto 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on
WP(C).No.5480 OF 2020(H)
the application of stay in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible within a period of 15 days from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
nak
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14
EXHIBIT P2
COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14
EXHIBIT P3
COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2013-14
EXHIBIT P4
COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
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.