Wp(C)/20859/2006 Of George Varghese v. Agrl,.Incometax And Commercial Tax Offic
High Court
19 Dec 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/20859/2006 Of George Varghese v. Agrl,.Incometax And Commercial Tax Offic
Date of order
19 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp(C)/20859/2006 Of George Varghese v. Agrl,.Incometax And Commercial Tax Offic, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933
WP(C).No. 20859 of 2006(G)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------------
GEORGE VARGHESE,
PANAMPUNNAYIL, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
---------------
1. AGRL. INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
2. DDEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM.
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KOTTAYAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ KUNJACHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P(C) No. 20859 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the matter hasbecome infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition isdismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to judge
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.