Wp(C)/10024/2016 Of M/S.kalyan Tourist Home v. Income Tax Officer, Ward
High Court
23 Mar 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/10024/2016 Of M/S.kalyan Tourist Home v. Income Tax Officer, Ward
Date of order
23 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/10024/2016 Of M/S.kalyan Tourist Home v. Income Tax Officer, Ward, the High Court (2016) 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/ 3RD CHAITHRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 10024 of 2016 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
M/S.KALYAN TOURIST HOME, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AJAYAKUMAR.P.
BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SRI.JACOB STEPHEN SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEWSRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
RESPONDENT:
-------------------
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD NO.1, PALAKKAD, O/O.JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD.
BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------
EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND REFLECTING THE AMOUNT.
EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2015 ISSUED TO MANAGER, SBI MAIN BRANCH, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P2(A): THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2015 ISSUED TO MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, PALAKKAD. BANK OF INDIA, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P2(B): THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2015 ISSUED TO MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., PALAKKAD SANJOES TOWER. FEDERAL BANK LTD., PALAKKAD SANJOES TOWER.
EXT.P2(C): THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2015 ISSUED TO MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, PALAKKAD. ANDHRA BANK, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P2(D): THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2015 ISSUED TO MANAGER, IDBI BANK LTD., PALAKKAD. BANK LTD., PALAKKAD.
EXT.P2(E): THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2015 ISSUED TO MANAGER, AXIS BANK LTD., 5619, CITY CENTRE, PALAKKAD. BANK LTD., 5619, CITY CENTRE, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P2(F): THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2015 ISSUED TO MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, PALAKKAD. UNION BANK OF INDIA, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.11.2015 EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.3 LAKHS. REMITTANCE OF RS.3 LAKHS.
EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 4.12.2015 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5: THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 17.2.2016 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS.2 LAKHS. RS.2 LAKHS.
EXT.P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.3.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY. THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
-------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.10024 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23[rd] day of March 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is aggrieved by Ext.P2 series of garnisheenotices, issued against him pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment orderconfirming a demand of almost Rs.28,70,176/- on the petitioner, forthe assessment year 2009-10, seeks only the grant of instalments todischarge his liability.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned standing counsel for the respondent.
3. In a statement submitted by the learned standing counselfor the respondent, it is seen that the demand of the petitioner forthe various assessment years is as follows:
Taking note of the fact that the assessment year in questionin the writ petition is 2009-10 and the liability of the petitioner in
Dated this the 23[rd] day of March 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is aggrieved by Ext.P2 series of garnisheenotices, issued against him pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment orderconfirming a demand of almost Rs.28,70,176/- on the petitioner, forthe assessment year 2009-10, seeks only the grant of instalments todischarge his liability.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned standing counsel for the respondent.
3. In a statement submitted by the learned standing counselfor the respondent, it is seen that the demand of the petitioner forthe various assessment years is as follows:
Taking note of the fact that the assessment year in questionin the writ petition is 2009-10 and the liability of the petitioner in
respect of that assessment year is Rs.28,70,176/-, I direct that if hepays the said amount of Rs.28,70,176/- together with accrued interest,in ten equal and successive monthly instalments, then recovery stepsagainst the petitioner for realisation of the tax amounts confirmedagainst him for the said assessment year, shall be kept in abeyance.It is also made clear that during the pendency of the stay granted bythis Court, the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 series of garnisheenotices shall also be kept in abeyance, so as to enable the petitionerto receive the amounts from his debtors and utilise the amounts forpayment of the tax amounts.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
sm/
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR 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.