Wp(C)/7517/2017 Of M/S.apollo Tyres Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Coporate Income Tax
High Court
07 Mar 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/7517/2017 Of M/S.apollo Tyres Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Coporate Income Tax
Date of order
07 Mar 2017
Assessment year(s)
2012-13
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/7517/2017 Of M/S.apollo Tyres Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Coporate Income Tax, the High Court (2017) 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.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 7517 of 2017 (L)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, AREEKAL MANSION, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT HEAD - PERAMBRA MR.GEORGE OOMMEN.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.GOVIND VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:
----------------------------
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018.
2. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BENCH, 'KENDRIYA BHAVAN', KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 037.
3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018.
BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 7517 of 2017 (L) ---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.12.2016 OF THEDISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL.DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.01.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.DATED 25.01.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 02.02.2017FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 08.02.2017 FILED BYTHE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.02.2017RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
Msv/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C)No.7517 of 2017 - L
=========================
Dated this the 07[th] day of March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P2 is the assessment order passed against the
petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13. Against which, thepetitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal, which is accompanied by Ext.P4stay petition before the 2[nd] respondent. Appeal and staypetition are pending before the 2[nd] respondent. In themeanwhile, coercive proceedings have been initiated. It is inthis context, the writ petition has been filed.
2. In the above circumstances, it is directed that the
appellate authority, the 2[nd] respondent herein, consider anddispose of Ext.P4 stay application within a period of twomonths from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thisjudgment and the coercive proceedings be stayed until suchorders are passed, which order shall determine the matter
W.P.(C)No.7517/2017
thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of without anyobservation on merits and keeping in abeyance the recoverytill such time as the directions herein are complied with by theappellate authority, whose orders shall determine the furthersteps thereafter.
Sd/-
SB/07/03/2017
// true copy //
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
P.A to Judge
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.