ASHA SUNIL vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/14921/2014HC KeralaKLHC01060543201403 July 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN3 pages

AI SummaryNot Applicable

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from the cause list and does not contain the High Court's judgment or decision on the writ petition. Therefore, the High Court's findings on any issues, the reasoning, the ratio decidendi, and the operative directions are not available. The judgment does not record what the Tribunal decided, nor does it mention any specific issue being left undecided. The outcome of the writ petition is also not indicated in this excerpt.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Asha Sunil, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The ITAT's order is the subject of the challenge. The petitioner is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ernakulam, the ITAT itself, and the Tax Recovery Officer, Range-I, Kochi. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions or orders from the High Court. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the ITAT's order is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court is whether the ITAT's order is legally sustainable and warrants interference under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner likely contends that the ITAT has erred in law or fact, leading to an unjust outcome. The specific grounds of challenge are not elaborated in the provided text. The revenue's contentions, if any, are also not recorded. The question of law revolves around the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ITAT. The petitioner's arguments would likely focus on demonstrating a violation of principles of natural justice, an error of law, or a perversity in the findings of fact by the ITAT. The revenue's defense would be to uphold the ITAT's order. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents are mentioned as being relied upon by either party in the provided excerpt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2014/12TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 14921 of 2014 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- ASHA SUNIL 13B, LINK HORIZON, MARINE DRIVE ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL) RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, FIRST FLOOR, (BLOCK C-I & C-II), KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPPOSITE CSEZ KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 037. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE - I, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD KOCHI - 18. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 14921 of 2014 (M) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT.P1- TRUE COPY ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y 2006-2007 DATED 31.12.2009. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y.2007-2008 DATED 31.12.2009. EXT.P3- TRUE COPY ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008-2009 DATED 31.12.2009. EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2013 PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 3.06.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) No. 14921 of 2014 ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2014 J U D G M E N T Exts.P1 to P3 are the assessment orders passed against the petitioner for the years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Against these orders, petitioner filed Exts.P5 to P7 appeals, before the 2nd respondent. Appeals are pending before the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, coercive proceedings have been initiated. It is in this context, the writ petition has been filed. 2. In the above circumstances, it is directed that the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent herein, shall consider and dispose of Exts.P5 to P7 appeals within a period of one month from today and the coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance which order shall determine the matter thereafter. Writ petition disposed of. Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →