Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/33784/2008 Of M/S.gasha Steels Pvt...

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
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) 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