Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/14844/2019 Of Eurotech Marketing v...

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).
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