Sri.vijay v. Paul
High Court
01 Aug 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Sri.vijay v. Paul
Date of order
01 Aug 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Sri.vijay v. Paul, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Decision: The review 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940
RP.No. 619 of 2018 IN W.A.NO.961/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.961/2018 DATED 15.5.2018
-------------------
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
M/S. MALABAR SANDS AND STONES [P] LTD.,
PAN : AAGCM1861 Q, PARAPPA, P.O.KUTTAPARAMBA,
KANNUR – 670 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HARIS CHARATTIADAN, AGED 47, S/O. MEMI.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VINO JOSE
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.MARIA ROY
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOCHI, O/O.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), COCHIN, 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011. KOCHI, O/O.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), COCHIN, 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN (NORTH BLOCK), KOZHIKODE - 673 001. CIRCLE – 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN (NORTH BLOCK), KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
ANNEXURE-1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ALONG WITH CHALAN NO.01691 DATED 25.05.2018 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.26,11,000/- MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER. DATED 25.05.2018 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.26,11,000/- MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN NO.03792 DATED 25.06.2018 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.23,95,050/- MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER. REMITTANCE OF RS.23,95,050/- MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-3 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN NO.03876 DATED 25.06.2018 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.2,15,950/- MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER. REMITTANCE OF RS.2,15,950/- MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.4022 OF 2017.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & ASHOK MENON, JJ.****************************************************************************************************************** Review Petition No.619 of 2018inW.A.No.961 of 2018******************************************************************************************************************Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2018ORDER
.A.Muhamed Mustaque, J
We heard this petition for review. We are not inclinedto entertain review. However, taking note of the fact thatthe petitioner stopped quarrying operations, we are of theview that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay theinstalments for the months of July to September at the rateof Rs.10 lakhs. This is taking note of the fact the petitionerhad already paid the instalments for the months of May andJune. The deficit of the due amount payable for the monthsof July to September will have to be paid along with otherregular instalments within the limit of maximum instalmentsalready granted by this Court. That means the deficitinstalment of July to September with equal proportion shallbe paid along with the remainder of instalments to be paid
Review Petition No.619 of 2018inW.A.No.961 of 2018 2
by the petitioner. The submission of the appellant that he
had paid Rs.10 lakhs on 25.07.2018 is recorded.
The review petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON, JUDGE
ln
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.