Wp(C)/15657/2012 Of M/S.marthoma Cheria Pally v. The Joint Director Of Income Tax (Osd) (Exemption) Range-4, Kochi
High Court
05 Jul 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/15657/2012 Of M/S.marthoma Cheria Pally v. The Joint Director Of Income Tax (Osd) (Exemption) Range-4, Kochi
Date of order
05 Jul 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/15657/2012 Of M/S.marthoma Cheria Pally v. The Joint Director Of Income Tax (Osd) (Exemption) Range-4, Kochi, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2012/14TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 15657 of 2012 (F)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
M/S.MARTHOMA CHERIA PALLY,
A.M. ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.
BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR,
SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ, SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (EXEMPTION),
RANGE-4, KOCHI-682 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
ERNAKULAM-682 018.
3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),
RANGE-4, KOCHI-682 001.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 15657 of 2012 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 21/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10.ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10.
EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF the APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 18/01/2012.THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 18/01/2012.
EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THEYEAR 2009-10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTDATED 20/06/2012.FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTDATED 20/06/2012.
EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD. 26/06/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. DTD. 26/06/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c) No.15657 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5[th] day of July , 2012
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2appeal along with Ext.P3 interlocutory application for stay, which arepending consideration before the second respondent. The petitioner alsofiled an application before the third respondent seeking to stay of collectionof demand during the pendency of the appeal under Section 220(b) of theIncome Tax Act. The first respondent, while disposing of the application,directed the petitioner to remit Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in ten instalments startingfrom 27/06/2012, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
3.Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4.Considering the facts and circumstances, the writ petition isdisposed of, directing the second respondent to consider Ext.3 application
for stay and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall bekept in abeyance till such time.
WPC.No.15657/2012
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with acopy of this writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE
sv.
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.