MURUKESH.K.B @ BHASKARAN KEEPARAYIL MURUKESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/6161/2015HC KeralaKLHC01052001201526 February 2015Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from a High Court writ petition and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or findings. It only records the date of admission of the writ petition. Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning that led to it, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available. No issue was expressly left undecided as no decision has been rendered in the provided text. The judgment does not contain any findings or holdings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Murukesh K.B., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order. The respondents include the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward-2, Thiruvalla, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Thiruvalla, is also a respondent. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The specific order or action under challenge and the assessment year(s) are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the matter came up for admission before the High Court on February 26, 2015.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to challenge an order, presumably an assessment order or an appellate order, passed by the income tax authorities. The specific grounds for challenge and the arguments advanced by the petitioner are not detailed in the provided text. Similarly, the arguments of the revenue authorities (CBDT, ITO, CIT(A)) are not recorded. The role of the Syndicate Bank as a respondent is also not elaborated upon in terms of the dispute. Therefore, the specific questions of law or mixed law and fact that the Tribunal had to decide, and the contentions of each side, are not ascertainable from the given text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/7TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6161 of 2015 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- MURUKESH K.B. @ BHASKARAN KEEPARAYIL MURUKESH S/O. BHASKARAN, KEEPARAYIL HOUSE MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 107.

BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.T.T.BIJU SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 2 ENNIKKATTIL ESTATE, NEAR K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVALLA – 689 101. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKHAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 003. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK, THIRUVALLA BRANCH THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 107.

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 6161 of 2015 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN NO. 6322001938 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. APMPM 86471 DATED 18-3-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 18-3-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 17-4-2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 17-4-2014 FILED IN EXT. P4 APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-2-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT, THE SYNDICATE BANK, THIRUVALLA BRANCH, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE INTIMATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. APMPM8647L/W-2/2011-12 DATED 18-3-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.6161 OF 2015 (U) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2015 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P2 assessment order for the assessment year 2011- 12 under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery steps initiated by the respondents for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P2 assessment order including steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P8 garnishee notice. 2. Heard Sri.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank. 3. 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: 1. The 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 stay petition within a period of three months

W.P.(C).No.6161/2015 2 from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2.Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P2 assessment order, including proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 garnishee notice, shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →