THREE STAR GRANITES PVT.LTD. V. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7972/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Three Star Granites Pvt. Ltd., which approached the High Court of Kerala seeking relief against the coercive recovery steps taken by the Income Tax Department concerning an assessment for the year 2007-08. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal and a stay application with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was not acted upon timely, leading to the High Court's intervention in a prior writ petition. The Tribunal eventually partly allowed the appeal but remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner, having accessed the Tribunal's order online, sought a certified copy and the opportunity to challenge the parts of the order that were not in their favor.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761389 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC No.3332/12
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; J R NAVAZ; NIVEDITA KAMATH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year 2007-08; Coercive Proceedings; Income Tax; Stay Petition; Tribunal
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 7972 of 2012 (V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THREE STAR GRANITES PVT.LTD., 3/113, THAYYOOR P.O., PAZHAVOOR ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR-680 584 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.P.BHASI. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I(1), THRISSUR-680 001. 2. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM-682 037. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.7972/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 9.2.2012 IN WPC NO.3332/12. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN STAY PETITION DATED 2.3.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.7972 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2012 JUDGMENT Fixation of liability under Section 143(3) of the IT Act in respect of the assessment year 2007-08 is the subject matter involved. Pursuant to the adverse order passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner in the course of remedy before the Tribunal, filed an appeal and an application for stay. Since coercive steps were pursued with regard to the assessment made, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3332/2012 which culminated in Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the third respondent was directed to consider and pass orders on the I.A. for stay, simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings in the meanwhile. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the matter was finally heard on 21/03/2012, but no final order has been passed to the knowledge of the petitioner, nor has it been communicated at any point of time. However, since the concerned respondents are proceeding WPC.No.7972/12 2 with steps for recovery, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court by filing this writ petition. 3. Heard the standing counsel for the IT department who entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now come across an order stated as passed on 29/03/2012 by the second respondent Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner has obtained it from the web site. Learned counsel submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed by the Tribunal, by remitting the matter for fresh consideration. It is also stated that the petitioner wants to examine the matter in detail and would like to challenge the same to the extent the same is not allowed by the Tribunal, simultaneously seeking for a direction to serve a certified copy to the petitioner. 5. After hearing both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to serve a certified copy of the order as aforesaid to the petitioner forthwith, if the same is not served so far. It will be open for the petitioner to pursue/work out remedies, if at all the WPC.No.7972/12 3 petitioner is aggrieved of the order in any manner. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv. WPC.No.7972/12 4 "