Wp(C)/14844/2019 Of Eurotech Marketing v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
30 May 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/14844/2019 Of Eurotech Marketing v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
30 May 2019
Assessment year(s)
2012-2013
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/14844/2019 Of Eurotech Marketing v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.Having regard to the circumstances of the case the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2(a) stay application and and Ext.P2(b) delaypetition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No. 14844 of 2019
PETITIONER:
EUROTECH MARKETINGCHANGHARAMKULAM,KOKUR.P.O, EDAPPAL,MALAPPURAM-679591, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-ABDUL RASHEED.M.C.
BY ADV. SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
OTHER PRESENT:
SCC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM., SRI. JOS WINSON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14844 of 2019
-2-
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Jaikrishna R., the counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Government Pleader.
2.
The petitioner prays for a direction to the second
respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2(a) stay applicationand Ext.P2(b) delay petition expeditiously.
3.Having regard to the circumstances of the case the writ
petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider
and dispose of Ext.P2(a) stay application and and Ext.P2(b) delaypetition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appealbefore the second respondent are stayed for two months fromtoday.
SD/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
-3-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AY-2012-2013.
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (2012-13)
EXHIBIT P2 A
TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT(2012-13)
EXHIBIT P2 B
TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (2012-13).
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.