K.T.Manojkumar vs. The State Tax Officer (Ib)
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.542 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: K.T.MANOJKUMAR AGED 52 YEARS S/O. K.P.THANKAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL GAYATHRI GRAND, OPP.GOVT. HOSPITAL, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 101 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WC), STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 101 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001 OTHER PRESENT: SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.542/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.542 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 and P1(a) penalty orders and Exts.P1(b) and P1(c) assessment orders, the petitioner has filed Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b) and P2(c) appeals and Exts.P3, P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c) stay petitions along with Exts.P4 and P4(a) petitions to condone delay. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.
Heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 3rd respondent shall take up the matters in Exts.P4 and P4(a) delay condonation applications and Exts.P3, P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c) stay applications filed in Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b) and P2(c) appeals and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative/ counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those
W.P.(C)No.542/2020 3 applications without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delay condonation and stay applications, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd
W.P.(C)No.542/2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PENALTY ODER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P1 (a) COPY OF PENALTY ODER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P1 (b) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ODER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P1 (c) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ODER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2 (a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2 (b) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P2 (c) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 (a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 (b) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 (c) COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 (a) COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.