Wp(C)/8336/2009 Of Al-Gayathri Trading Company Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8336 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A1-GAYATHRI TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD363-A, GAYATHRI HOUSECHERIYANAD, CHENGANNURREP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORMR.P.NANDAKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOTTAYAM BY SRI.JOSEPH JOSE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.3.09 , THE COURT ON 16/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 8336 OF 2009 J ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has filed Ext.P3 statutory appeal. Ext.P4 is a notice by which the case stands posted to 19.3.2009. The petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam, the 3[rd] respondent, by filing Ext.P5 stay petition andnow the petitioner complains that he is orally informed that hisbank account may be frozen. 2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel Sri.Jose Joseph. Learned standing counselpoints out that Ext.P5 is not maintainable before theCommissioner of Income Tax and it is for the petitioner toapproach either the appellate authority or the assessing officerwith an application seeking stay. The petitioner has done neither. 3.Having regard to the circumstances, writ petition isdisposed of as follows. Taking note of the posting date given in Ext.P4, it is orderedthat if the petitioner moves for stay before the appellate authority, WPC.8336/09 : 2 : namely the 2[nd] respondent, before 19.3.2009, orders will bepassed on the same within a week of 19.3.2009. I, however,make it very clear that this direction would not mean that it is notopen to the 2[nd] respondent to consider the appeal itself. Till adecision is taken on the application for stay, recovery steps will bekept in abeyance. aks Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)