Wp(C)/41386/2018 Of M/S. Thariff Builders Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
19 Dec 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/41386/2018 Of M/S. Thariff Builders Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
19 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/41386/2018 Of M/S. Thariff Builders Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 28THAGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 41386 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
M/S. THARIFF BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED2ND FLOOR, THARIF ARCADE, PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE-673004
BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSHRI.GOKULRAJ L.SMT. ARYA ANILSMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAMSRI.R.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE(2), KOZHIKODE-673 001CENTRAL CIRCLE(2), KOZHIKODE-673 001
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS III).ERNAKULAM-683001ERNAKULAM-6830013TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (CENTRAL)COCHIN-682 011COCHIN-682 011
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No. 41386 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Income Tax
Act on the rolls of the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1assessment order, before the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner hasalso filed stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievancethat the authorities are taking coercive steps before theappellate authority could consider the stay petition, thepetitioner has filed this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader.
3.I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time hisstatutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has alsofiled a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that theauthorities may wait, before taking further steps, until theappellate authority decides on the stay petition.
Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing therespondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2[nd]
W.P.(C). No. 41386 of 2018
respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2[nd]respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
das
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2017EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SEC.220 (6) FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.02.2018EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.02.2018EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY LETTER DATED 11.12.2018
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.