Mr. Harisankar v. Menon
High Court
25 Jun 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Mr. Harisankar v. Menon
Date of order
25 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mr. Harisankar v. Menon, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. kmd P.
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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931
WP(C).No. 17640 of 2009(Y)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------------
K.BALASUBRAMANIAN,
ANAND TIMBERS, COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. MR. ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON
MR. HARISANKAR V. MENON
MS. MEERA V.MENON
MR. MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
---------------
1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX
OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 17640 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 25[th] day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent inrespect of the assessment year 2004 - 2005 has been subjected tochallenge by filing Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent alongwith Ext.P3 petition for stay. The case of the petitioner is that, it iswithout any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings that therespondents are running after the petitioner with the coercive steps,which is sought to be interfered in the present Writ Petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
Considering the facts and figures, the second respondent ishereby directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2appeal and Ext. P3 petition for stay in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that tillappropriate orders are passed on Ext.P3 petition for stay, all furthercoercive proceedings, stated as being pursued against the petitioner,shall be kept in abeyance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
kmd
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, 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.