Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/3149/2021 Of Pooppally Coir Mills...

Wp(C)/3149/2021 Of Pooppally Coir Mills v. Agricultureal Income Tax And State Tax Officer

High Court 08 Feb 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/3149/2021 Of Pooppally Coir Mills v. Agricultureal Income Tax And State Tax Officer
Date of order
08 Feb 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/3149/2021 Of Pooppally Coir Mills v. Agricultureal Income Tax And State Tax Officer, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

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 A.M.BADAR MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.3149 OF 2021(P) PETITIONER: POOPPALLY COIR MILLSAS ROAD,ALAPPUZHA-688007,(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGINGPARTNER,DILIP CHERIAN THOMAS). BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.SREEJITH R.NAIRSMT.TELMA RAJUSRI.SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB RESPONDENTS: 1AGRICULTUREAL INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICERKERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA-688001. KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT, 2STATE OF KERALA,STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA-688001. GP-- THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of February 2021 Heard both sides. 2.The limited grievance of the petitioner is to the effect thatdespite passing orders at Exts. P1 to P3, the respondents have notpassed the final order in Form GST PMT-03 regarding re-credit of theamount to the electronic credit ledger. Considering the limited prayer made in the petition, the petitionis disposed of with a direction to the respondents to passconsequential order in form GST PMT-03, if not passed earlier, within aperiod of one month from the communication of this judgment to therespondents. The learned Government Pleader to communicate thisorder to the respondents. Nsd//TRUE COPY//PA TO JUDGE SD/- A.M.BADAR JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2020 FOR THE MONTH OF JULY,2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2020 FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST,2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2020 FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER,2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.11.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.11.2020 MARKED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan