M/S. SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/32153/2013HC KeralaKLHC01075337201324 December 2013Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 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 decision or findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible to state what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning behind its decision, or the ratio decidendi. No operative directions or issues left undecided can be identified from this text.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Society for Rural Improvement, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, 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, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Cochin. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

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 (M/s. Society for Rural Improvement) or the revenue (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Therefore, no questions of law or fact, nor any contentions or reliance on authorities, can be extracted from this judgment excerpt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/3RD POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 32153 of 2013 (T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S. SOCIETY FOR RURAL IMPROVEMENT SREE SRIMOORTHY NAGAR, NEAR CHINMAYA MISSION KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD PIN - 678 506, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHRI DR. PRABHAKARAN

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE -1, PALAKKAD 678 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -V 7TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN SRV H.S. ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS

WP(C).No. 32153 of 2013 (T) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2013 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P-2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 13.12.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-2(a): COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 13.12.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-3: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.12.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 220 (6) OF THE ACT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32153 of 2013 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of December, 2013

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment. The appeal is accompanied by Ext.P2(a) petition for stay of recovery of the disputed tax. The petitioner is apprehensive of coercive steps taken even before the disposal of the appeal and the petition for stay. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P2(a) petition with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be put on put on hold in the meanwhile. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of. SD/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →