THE KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC CO OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The provided text is an excerpt from a High Court judgment admitting a writ petition for hearing. It does not contain any findings or decisions by the Tribunal on any issues. Therefore, it is not possible to state what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning that led to it, the ratio decidendi, or any operative directions. No issues were expressly left undecided as no decision was made.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Kerala State Homeopathic Cooperative Pharmacy Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Alappuzha. The Union of India and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were impleaded as respondents. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, along with the amount in dispute, are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the writ petition was admitted for hearing on December 22, 2015.
What were the issues?
The provided text does not contain sufficient information to identify the specific issues the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it record the arguments presented by the assessee or the revenue. Therefore, it is not possible to frame the questions of law or mixed law and fact, name the relevant provisions, or detail the contentions and authorities relied upon by each side.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Against Ext. P3 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal and Ext.P7 stay petition before the additional 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are sought to be pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext. P3 assessment order.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: i) The additional 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 stay petitions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.
W.P.(c).No.35408 of 2015 : 2 : ii) Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P3 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the additional 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with the copy of this judgment, before the additional 3rd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE sm/
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026