By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna
High Court
31 Jan 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna
Date of order
31 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.menonsmt.k.krishna, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
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
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 11TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.2696 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONER/S:
THE PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETYLIMITED NO. F 1078, CHITTUR ROAD, KUNNATHURMEDU.P.O.,PALAKKAD-678013, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.R. SUMATHY
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENONSMT.K.KRISHNA
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680021
OTHER PRESENT:
SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 2696 of 2020
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 31[st] day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal andExt.P3 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendencyof the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated bythe assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.
Heard Sri. Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader appearingfor the respondents.
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 Ext.P3 stay application filed inExt.P2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard tothe petitioner through their authorised representative/ counsel, if any,shall pass order on those application without much delay, preferablywithin a period of two months from the date of production of a certifiedcopy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid stayapplication, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned orderwill be kept in abeyance.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -2017-18EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
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.