P.a. To Judge v. Chitambaresh, J
High Court
27 Apr 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
P.a. To Judge v. Chitambaresh, J
Date of order
27 Apr 2012
Assessment year(s)
2002-03, 2003-04
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In P.a. To Judge v. Chitambaresh, J, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of as above.
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 V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/7TH VAISAKHA 1934
WP(C).No. 10332 of 2012 (N)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
CAVUNAL RUBBER ESTATE (P) LTD RAMANCHIRA, THIRUVALLA
REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.JOSE THOMAS.
BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX &COMMERCIAL TAXES KANJIRAPPILLY.686 507.
2. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM-686 001. ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.10332/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2002-03.
EXHIBIT P1(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2003-04.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILEDBEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONALBENCH, KOTTAYAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILEDBEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONALBENCH, KOTTAYAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2002-03.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2003-04.
EXHIBIT P7(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 10.10.2011.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.02.2012 FILED BEFORE THEAGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 28.03.2012 FOR THEASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03.
EXHIBIT P10-TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 26.03.2012 FORTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
tss
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
V. CHITAMBARESH, J--------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 10332 OF 2012
------------------------------------
Dated this the 27[th] day of April, 2012
JUDGMENT
The matter arises under the Kerala Agricultural IncomeTax Act, 1991. Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed by the FirstAppellate Authority are impugned in Exts.P4 and P5 appealsbefore the second respondent Appellate Tribunal. The appealsare supported by Exts.P6 and P7 applications for stay as well.The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P10 notices forrecovery of the amount in dispute.
2.I direct the second respondent to consider Exts.P6and P7 applications for stay within a period of one month fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recoveryproceedings evidenced by Exts. P9 and P10 notices shall remainstayed till orders are so passed on Exts.P6 and P7 applicationsfor stay. Needless to say that the petitioner would be put onnotice and heard before orders are passed on the applicationsfor stay.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
V. CHITAMBARESH 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.