Wp(C)/32050/2014 Of Mathew Joseph v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 32050 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MATHEW JOSEPH, THATHARAMVELI, BIJU NIVAS, MUMARANALLOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 016. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SMT.SOUMYA PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y 2007-2008.SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y 2007-2008. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y 2007-2008.SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y 2007-2008. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.32050 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1[st] day of December, 2014. JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 1[st] respondent in respect of the assessment year 2007-2008, thepetitioner has already preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the 2[nd]respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that without anyregard to the pendency of the above proceedings, therespondents are proceeding with coercive steps, which hence aresought to be intercepted by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3petition for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings shall be kept inabeyance till such time. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along witha copy of the writ petition, before the 2[nd] respondent, for furthersteps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp