Case LawHigh Court › Sri.harisankar v. Menon

Sri.harisankar v. Menon

High Court 15 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Sri.harisankar v. Menon
Date of order
15 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Sri.harisankar v. Menon, 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 K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19228 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, ANAND TIMBERS, COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 19228 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. By Ext.P1, the Officer hasrejected the request for refund of the input tax. At the same time,petitioner has been called upon to pay tax with penal interest.As far as the refusal of refund is concerned, Ext.P1 is appealableand petitioner is to avail of the remedy available under law and Irelegate the petitioner to pursue the said remedy. The furthercontention taken is that without there being an order passed, taxis demanded. It is stated that this is impermissible. In fact, whatis stated in the impugned order Ext.P1, is as follows: "Please pay the balance tax with penal interest for various months" 2. Learned Government Pleader points out that it cannot be treated as a demand. The ultimate order that is passed is thatthe petitioner is not eligible for refund and the refund claim isordered to be withheld. Therefore, recording the submission of WPC.19228/08 L the learned Government Pleader that there is no demand for taxas such, the Writ Petition is disposed of, relegating the petitionerto pursue the remedy in respect of the refusal to grant refundbefore the appropriate Authority. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.
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