Wp(C)/17239/2012 Of U.k. Yousuf v. The Incometax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012/2ND SRAVANA 1934 WP(C).No. 17239 of 2012 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- U.K. YOUSUF, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.M.K.TRADERS MAIN ROAD, HOSANGADI, KASARAGOD-671322. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR RESPONDENT(S):-------------- 1. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-2, KASARAGOD-671121. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II 4TH FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, AYYAKKAR BHAVAN MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON24-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17239 of 2012 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFICATION ORDER DATED 12.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.11.2011 FILEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.11.2011 FILEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5(a).TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON STAY PETITION DATED 16.07.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2011 ISSUED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT.THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.01.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7(a).TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 30.01.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8.TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.AAKPY2964M/2011-12 DATED 18.01.2012 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 18.01.2012 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P9. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AKVPY2964M DATED 10.07.2012, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P10.TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.07.2012 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P11.TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ITA NO.CIT(A)/CLT/MISC./2011-12 DATED 6.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.CLT/MISC./2011-12 DATED 6.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P12.TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 16.07.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2008-09.THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2008-09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY KP P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.17239 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the coercive proceedings being pursued by the concerned respondent without any regard to thependency of the statutory appeal and interlocutory application forstay. 2. On being mulcted with Ext.P2 and P4 orders imposingpenalty by the first respondent the petitioner preferred Exts.P3and P5 appeals along with Ext.P5(a) petition for stay which arepending consideration before the second respondent. Similarly,with regard to Ext.P6 assessment order petitioner has filed Ext.P7appeal and P12 petition for stay (by way of restoration) beforethe second respondent, which are also pending consideration. W.P.(C). No.17239 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the coercive proceedings being pursued by the concerned respondent without any regard to thependency of the statutory appeal and interlocutory application forstay. 2. On being mulcted with Ext.P2 and P4 orders imposingpenalty by the first respondent the petitioner preferred Exts.P3and P5 appeals along with Ext.P5(a) petition for stay which arepending consideration before the second respondent. Similarly,with regard to Ext.P6 assessment order petitioner has filed Ext.P7appeal and P12 petition for stay (by way of restoration) beforethe second respondent, which are also pending consideration. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents submits that the total amount demanded is nearlyRs. 7.85 lakhs (Rupees seven lakhs eighty five thousand), out ofwhich the dispute is only with regard to Rs. 4,06,666/-(Rupeesfour lakhs six thousand six hundred and sixty six). W.P.C. No.17239 of 2012 In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of,directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriateorders in Ext.P5(a) and P12 in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The realization of thedisputed liabilityforming the subject matter of Ext.P5(a) and P12shall be kept in abeyance till such time. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Kp/-