MIR REALTORS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/21668/2012HC KeralaKLHC01063744201218 September 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC5 pages

AI SummaryThe provided text is a cause list entry and does not contain the judgment. Therefore, the result of the writ petition cannot be determined.

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from the cause list of the High Court of Kerala and does not contain the judgment itself. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning behind its decision, or the operative directions issued. The finding on any issue, the ratio decidendi, and any specific relief granted or denied are not recorded. The judgment does not mention any issue being left undecided. Consequently, no principle can be extracted for citation, and no operative directions can be noted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mir Realtors Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Kochi; the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-II), Kochi; and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I (II), Kochi. The writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions concerning the assessment proceedings. The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order or action under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether a writ petition was maintainable in the given circumstances, particularly concerning the assessment proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities. The petitioner likely sought to challenge the assessment order or a related procedural aspect. The arguments presented by the petitioner and the revenue are not recorded in the provided text. The specific legal provisions or grounds on which the challenge was based are also not mentioned. Therefore, the questions of law or mixed law and fact that the Tribunal had to decide, and the contentions of each side, are not discernible from the given excerpt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/27TH BHADRA 1934 WP(C).No. 21668 of 2012 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MIR REALTORS PVT. LTD., M.M.BUILDINGS, KALABHAVAN ROAD, KOCHI-682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.ARUN KUMAR. BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-II), KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI-682011. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I (II), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LSN

WP(C).No. 21668 of 2012 (G) APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 15.12.2011. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 12.1.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.9.2012 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING TO HEAR THE APPEAL. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.9.2012 PRAYING FOR STAY OF THE COLLECTION OF THE DISPUTED TAX. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/REQUEST DATED 25.6.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.6.2012 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE LSN

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.21668 OF 2012(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2012 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of real estate development. Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed against the petitioner under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by that order, petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition, which are pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P4 and in the meanwhile petitioner moved the third respondent. On that application, the third respondent passed Ext.P6 order, directing the petitioner to remit 50% of the total demand in 18 equal monthly installments of Rs.17 lakhs each. It is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order and apprehending recovery for non-compliance thereof, this writ petition is filed. 3. Evidently, the appeal and stay petition are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. Taking into account the huge demand that is raised against the petitioner, I feel that the

WPC.No. 21668/2012 :2 : appropriate order to be passed is to require the appellate authority to consider Ext.P4 stay petition. This the appellate authority shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the meanwhile further proceedings to recover the amount due under Ext.P1 assessment order will be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/

WPC.No. 21668/2012 :3 :

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →