Disposed

K.Anilkumar v. the Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)

Kerala HC9 Jul 2018WA/1359/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Appeal. It dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's refusal to interfere. However, considering the appellant's financial circumstances, it granted three instalments to pay the demanded tax amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; however, the appellant was granted three instalments to pay the tax and interest demands.

K.Anilkumar Vs the Asst. Commissioner (Assessment) — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶5

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶6

W.A.No.1359 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.20767/2018-U DATED 25.06.2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶8

----------------

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:-

¶10

K.ANILKUMAR, M/S. AMBALAKKARA CASHEW & HOTEL AMBALAKKARA, VELIYAM, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) /RESPONDENTS:-

¶13

1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),

¶14

COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE,

¶15

KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506.

¶16

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ.

W.A.No.1359 of 2018

Dated, this the 09^th day of July, 2018

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Vinod Chandran, J:

¶26

The appellant is aggrieved with the decision of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with the conditional order passed by the first appellate authority at Exhibit P3. The first appellate authority had directed remittance of 35% of the balance tax and interest demanded for the year, within three weeks. The learned Single Judge, after refusing to interfere with the order, gave a further time of two weeks to comply with the direction. The assessee is in appeal before us.

¶27

We find that the assessment was completed taking

¶28

a higher gross profit than that conceded. The assessee challenged the same in first appeal, specifically contending that there were no defects noticed in the subject year and there could not have been a rejection based only on the earlier estimation made by the Assessing Officer of the assessee itself. In any event, we see that the first appellate authority has granted a stay on condition of payment of 35%. The learned Single Judge having refused to exercise discretion, it may not be proper for us

¶29

W.A.No.1359 of 2018

¶30

- 2 -

¶31

to substitute the opinion of the learned Single Judge in an appeal. We, hence, feel that there is nothing to be interfered in the judgment. However, considering the impecunious circumstances pleaded, the appellant is granted three instalments to pay up the amount, starting from 09.08.2018 to 09.10.2018.

¶32

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

K.Vinod Chandran Judge

¶35

Sd/Ashok Menon Judge

¶36

vku/-

¶37

[ true copy ]

K.Anilkumar v. the Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Anilkumar v. the Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sacred Heart Convent Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Roads & Bridges Development Corporat Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-I

Sonia Exports Vs the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvan Vs Smt.Preetha S.Nair

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Pan Pacific Engineering Services (P) Ltd.

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs M/S.P L Lawarence & Company