Wp(C)/21296/2021 Of Kizhakkedath Enterprises v. Agrl. Income Tax And State Tax Officer
High Court
06 Oct 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/21296/2021 Of Kizhakkedath Enterprises v. Agrl. Income Tax And State Tax Officer
Date of order
06 Oct 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/21296/2021 Of Kizhakkedath Enterprises v. Agrl. Income Tax And State Tax Officer, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of as above.
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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21296 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S.KIZHAKKEDATH ENTERPRISESPAZHAVANGADI.P.O, RANNI-689673,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.JOMON PHILIP.
BY ADVS.SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUELSRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1AGRL. INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICERSGST DEPARTMENT, RANNI-689673.2DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)SGST DEPARTMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.3THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXSGST DEPARTMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.
BY DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21296/21
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.21296 of 2021
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6[th] day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating toassessment year 2016-17, petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appealbefore the 2[nd] respondent, along with Ext.P3 petition for condoningdelay in filing Ext.P2 appeal. A petition for stay of proceedingspursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P4.Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected evenbefore the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition.
2. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for thepetitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writpetition itself can be disposed of with a direction.
3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent toconsider and pass orders on Ext.P3 delay condonation petition aswell as Ext.P4 stay petition, within a period of three months from the
W.P.(C) No.21296/21
-:3:-
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is
taken, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
vps
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
W.P.(C) No.21296/21
-:4:-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21296/2021
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.02.2021COMPLETED U/S.25(1)OF THE KVAT ACT FOR2016-17 BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED12/07/2021SUBMITTEDBEFORE2NDRESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1.12/07/2021SUBMITTEDBEFORE2NDRESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P3
TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONINGDELAY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT P2APPEAL, BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.DELAY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT P2APPEAL, BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4
TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY SUBMITTEDALONG EXT.P2 APPEAL, BEFORE THE 2NDRESPONDENT.ALONG EXT.P2 APPEAL, BEFORE THE 2NDRESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5
TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11-12-2020IN WP(C)NO.27617 OF 2020 PASSED BY THISHON'BLE COURT IN DIRECTING 1STRESPONDENT TO CONSIDER JUDGMENT PASSEDON SIMILAR ISSUE, WHILE COMPLETINGASSESSMENT.IN WP(C)NO.27617 OF 2020 PASSED BY THISHON'BLE COURT IN DIRECTING 1STRESPONDENT TO CONSIDER JUDGMENT PASSEDON SIMILAR ISSUE, WHILE COMPLETINGASSESSMENT.
EXHIBIT P6
TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2015IN WP(C)NO.5077 OF 2009 PASSED BY THISHON'BLE COURT.IN WP(C)NO.5077 OF 2009 PASSED BY THISHON'BLE COURT.
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.