Wp(C)/23678/2012 Of Crescent Medical Centre Ltd v. The Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer
High Court
10 Oct 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/23678/2012 Of Crescent Medical Centre Ltd v. The Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer
Date of order
10 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/23678/2012 Of Crescent Medical Centre Ltd v. The Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Decision: Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ln Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/18TH ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 23678 of 2012 (H)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:-----------
CRESCENT MEDICAL CENTRE LTD,
DOOR NO. XI/835, COURT ROAD,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY A. USMAN,
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SMT.M.SHAJNA SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SMT.NEENU.P.KUMAR SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SMT.NEENU.P.KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR, PIN-678541. ALATHUR, PIN-678541.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), 4TH FLOOR SALES TAX COMPLEX, PERUMANNUR, ERNAKULAM PIN-682015. 4TH FLOOR SALES TAX COMPLEX, PERUMANNUR, ERNAKULAM PIN-682015.
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- PIN-678101.
4. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001. COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SHOBHA ANNAMMA EAPPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 :TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED13-6-2012.ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED13-6-2012.EXT.P2 :TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 2-7-2012.SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 2-7-2012.EXT.P3 :TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 6-9-2012.BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 6-9-2012.EXT.P4 :TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21-8-2012.BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21-8-2012.EXT.P5 :TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21-8-2012.BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21-8-2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.23678 of 2012
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2012
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 order of assessment is challenged before the secondrespondent in Ext.P2 appeal. Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 staypetition are pending before the second respondent. In themeanwhile, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated byExts.P4 and P5 demand notices. Therefore, the writ petition isfiled.
Taking note of the pendency of Ext.P3 stay petition beforethe second respondent, I direct the second respondent to passorders thereon. This shall be done at any rate, within four weeksfrom today. In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant toExts.P4 and P5, will be kept in abeyance.
Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment and writ
petition before the second respondent for compliance.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
ln
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, 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.