Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M.Narayanan Vs. Intelligence Officer(ib)

M.Narayanan vs intelligence Officer(ib)

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 27, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089504

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Narayanan

Respondent

intelligence Officer(ib)

Excerpt

.....p9 : true copy of the appeal filed before the2d respondent by the petitioner against ext.p5 assessment order. exhibit p9(a) : true copy of the stay application in ext.p9 appeal. exhibit p9(b) : true copy of the application for urgent hearing in ext.p9 appeal. respondent(s)' exhibits : nil /true copy/ p.a. to judge. v. chitambaresh, j -------------------------------- wp(c) no. 22628 of2013------------------------------------ dated this the 27th day of september, 2013 judgment the petitioner challenges ext.p13 conditional order passed in ext.p9 appeal filed against ext.p5 order of assessment. the petitioner contends that ext.p5 order is based on ext.p1 order imposing penalty which itself is under challenge in appeal before the tribunal. a detailed consideration of the merits of this case at this juncture would prejudice the contentions of either parties in the statutory appeals pending.2. the petitioner has already remitted a sum of `3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) in compliance with ext.p13 order as evidenced by ext.p14 demand draft. interest of justice would be met by directing the petitioner to deposit a further sum of `5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) within a period of one month in order to avail the benefit of stay.3. ext.p13 order is modified accordingly and the stay sought in ext.p9(a) petition would be operative if a further sum of `5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) is deposited within the 2 wp(c) no. 22628/2013 time stipulated. the petitioner shall however furnish adequate security for the balance amount. the writ petition is disposed of. v. chitambaresh judge ncd

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20135TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 22628 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR OF RED ARROW, SREENIKETH, ELAMANA ROAD TRIPPUNITHURA. BY ADVS.SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB), (ERNAKULAM), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682015.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT), OLD RLY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018.

4. KVATTRIBUNAL, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682015 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

5. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682030.

6. STATEOF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURTAM-695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHAANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2709-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22628 of 2013 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER

DATED.14.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE DATED202/2012 ISSUED BY THE5H RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN WPC NO.31245/2010 DATED111/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT FOR RS.5. LAKHS PAID ON193/2011. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORADER DATED124/2012 FOR THE YEAR20082009 IOSSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER

NO.KVAT3361/2010 DATED186/2012 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED197/2012 IN WPC NO.14808/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE2D APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P6 BEFORE THE4H RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION IN EXT.P8 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P8(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR URGENT HEARING IN EXT.P8 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P5 ASSESSMENT ORDER

. EXHIBIT P9(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION IN EXT.P9 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P9(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING IN EXT.P9 APPEAL. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22628 OF2013------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P13 conditional order passed in Ext.P9 appeal filed against Ext.P5 order of assessment. The petitioner contends that Ext.P5 order is based on Ext.P1 order imposing penalty which itself is under challenge in appeal before the tribunal. A detailed consideration of the merits of this case at this juncture would prejudice the contentions of either parties in the statutory appeals pending.

2. The petitioner has already remitted a sum of `3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) in compliance with Ext.P13 order as evidenced by Ext.P14 Demand Draft. Interest of justice would be met by directing the petitioner to deposit a further sum of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) within a period of one month in order to avail the benefit of stay.

3. Ext.P13 order is modified accordingly and the stay sought in Ext.P9(a) petition would be operative if a further sum of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) is deposited within the 2 WP(C) No. 22628/2013 time stipulated. The petitioner shall however furnish adequate security for the balance amount. The Writ Petition is disposed of. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial