Wp(C)/10641/2024 Of Geetha Kokkatu Paul v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
15 Mar 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/10641/2024 Of Geetha Kokkatu Paul v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
15 Mar 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/10641/2024 Of Geetha Kokkatu Paul v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of as above. rkj Sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10641/2024
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 GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 15 DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 10641 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
GEETHA KOKKATU PAUL,AGED 53 YEARSW/O C.T SABU CHIRAMEL HOUSE, HOSPITAL ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680307BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
P.G. JAYASHANKAR-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessmentunder the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitionerpreferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition beforethe 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner apprehends recoveryproceedings pending consideration of the stay petition by the 3[rd]respondent. Hence this writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner andSri.P.G.Jayashankar for the Income TaxDepartment, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself canbe disposed of with a direction.
3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petitionin accordance with law. Till such time as orders are passed onExt.P3 any demand pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept inabeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
rkj
Sd/-
GOPINATH P., JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10641/2024
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.