Case LawHigh Court › Jose v. Manuel,V.m.j. Rubbers,Olimkadavu...

Jose v. Manuel,V.m.j. Rubbers,Olimkadavu, Mangalamdam,Vadakencherry,Palakkad District

High Court 29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Jose v. Manuel,V.m.j. Rubbers,Olimkadavu, Mangalamdam,Vadakencherry,Palakkad District
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Jose v. Manuel,V.m.j. Rubbers,Olimkadavu, Mangalamdam,Vadakencherry,Palakkad District, the High Court (2008) 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 ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C) No. 3282 of 2008(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JOSE V. MANUEL,V.M.J. RUBBERS,OLIMKADAVU, MANGALAMDAM,VADAKENCHERRY,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1.AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX ANDCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,ALATHUR 2.TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.P.(C) No. 3282 OF 2008 N= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29[th] January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Exts. P1 to P3 are the assessment orders produced by the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that the amount founddue in Ext. P1 is sought to be recovered by issuing Exts. P4 and P5demand notices. In so far as Exts. P2 and P3 assessment orders areconcerned, it is stated that revenue recovery proceedings are yet tobe initiated. In this writ petition, petitioner confesses that he hasnot filed any appeal as at present. According to him, he needs abreathing time to pursue his statutory remedy of appeal and that inthe meanwhile revenue recovery steps for realising the amount duein terms of Exts. P1 to P3 be deferred. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that inthe absence of having filed any appeal the petitioner is not justifiedin making the request. 3. Since a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the W.P.(C) No. 3282 OF 2008 petitioner and that the petitioner intends to pursue such remedy, Iam inclined to grant the petitioner a breathing time. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that coercivesteps for recovering the tax in terms of Exts. P1 to P3 be deferredfor a period of 2 weeks from today and in the meantime it will beopen to the petitioner to pursue the remedies that are available tohim. jan/- ANTONY DOMINICJUDGE
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