Wp(C)/33784/2008 Of M/S.gasha Steels Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
17 Nov 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/33784/2008 Of M/S.gasha Steels Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
17 Nov 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/33784/2008 Of M/S.gasha Steels Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2008) 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 K.M.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930
WP(C).No. 33784 of 2008(V)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
M/S.GASHA STEELS PVT.LTD.,
23/2087,PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE-
673003,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.ABDUL GAFOOR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-1(1) RANGE-1, KOZHIKODE.
2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX KOZHIKODE.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
KOZHIKODE.
BY SC FOR IT SRI. JOSE JOSEPH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No.33784 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Complaint of the petitioner is that on the basis on anunadjudicated proposal in the show cause notice issued by the CentralExcise Department, there is a move to reassess the petitioner under theIncome Tax Act. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.Srikumar andthe learned Standing Counsel Sri. Jose Joseph.
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that there was a notice
issued calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents and details,which counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has furnished,and no re-assessment notice has been issued yet. He further submits thatreassessment will be done only after issuing notice to the petitioner andgiving an opportunity to the petitioner.
In the light of this, at this stage, I do not think it necessary toentertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. I makeit clear that I have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of thecontentions of the petitioner. I leave open all the contentions of thepetitioner.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb
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.