Vinayaka Handlooms vs. The State Tax Officer-I
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, Ext.P2 pending appeal preferred against the assessment order dated 10.01.2020 has been decided. So the purpose of seeking mandamus for early disposal and stay of demand would not survive. In view of what has been noticed above, this writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order in accordance with law. AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Dxy
WP(C).No.13068 OF 2020(G) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 10.01.2020 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2020 EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2020 EXHIBIT P4OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2020 EXHIBIT P5OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2020
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.