Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/6094/2019 Of Kay Kay Enterprises v...

Wp(C)/6094/2019 Of Kay Kay Enterprises v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 28 Feb 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6094/2019 Of Kay Kay Enterprises v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
28 Feb 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/6094/2019 Of Kay Kay Enterprises v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) 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 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDUTHURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA,1940 WP(C).No. 6094 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: KAY KAY ENTERPRISESX/78, KUNNATH COMPLEX, VARAVOOR, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.K.K.MOITHEEN, BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIRSMT.K.HYMAVATHY OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 6094 of 2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, onthe rolls of the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner has also filed astay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that theauthorities are taking coercive steps before the appellateauthority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner hasfiled 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. 6094 of 2019 -3- 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 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 28.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/01/2019.PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/01/2019. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31/01/2019.1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31/01/2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/02/2019.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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