Wp(C)/7972/2012 Of Three Star Granites Pvt.ltd v. Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 7972 of 2012 (V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THREE STAR GRANITES PVT.LTD., 3/113, THAYYOOR P.O., PAZHAVOOR ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR-680 584 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.P.BHASI. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I(1), THRISSUR-680 001. 2. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM-682 037. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7972/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED9.2.2012 IN WPC NO.3332/12. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN STAY PETITION DATED 2.3.2012 ISSUED TO THEPETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.7972 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2012 JUDGMENT Fixation of liability under Section 143(3) of the IT Act in respectof the assessment year 2007-08 is the subject matter involved.Pursuant to the adverse order passed by the assessing authority, thepetitioner in the course of remedy before the Tribunal, filed an appealand an application for stay. Since coercive steps were pursued withregard to the assessment made, petitioner was constrained to approachthis Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3332/2012 which culminated in Ext.P1judgment, whereby the third respondent was directed to consider andpass orders on the I.A. for stay, simultaneously intercepting thecoercive proceedings in the meanwhile. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the matter wasfinally heard on 21/03/2012, but no final order has been passed to theknowledge of the petitioner, nor has it been communicated at any pointof time. However, since the concerned respondents are proceeding WPC.No.7972/12 with steps for recovery, the petitioner is constrained to approach thiscourt by filing this writ petition. 3.Heard the standing counsel for the IT department whoentered appearance on behalf of the first respondent. 4.During the course of hearing, learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the petitioner has now come across an orderstated as passed on 29/03/2012 by the second respondent Tribunal inthe appeal preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner has obtained it fromthe web site. Learned counsel submits that the appeal preferred by thepetitioner has been partly allowed by the Tribunal, by remitting thematter for fresh consideration. It is also stated that the petitioner wantsto examine the matter in detail and would like to challenge the same tothe extent the same is not allowed by the Tribunal, simultaneouslyseeking for a direction to serve a certified copy to the petitioner. 5.After hearing both sides, this writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the second respondent to serve a certified copy of the order asaforesaid to the petitioner forthwith, if the same is not served so far. Itwill be open for the petitioner to pursue/work out remedies, if at all the WPC.No.7972/12 petitioner is aggrieved of the order in any manner. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE sv.