The Choice Foundation vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1858076

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1858076
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu
Decided On: Jan 31, 2019
Case Number: WP(C)/2915/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Choice Foundation

Respondent

Union of India

Excerpt

.....north block, new delhi- 110001 and others. 2 deputy commissioner of income tax(exemptions), sanjum tower, behind cr building, kochi kerala-682018. 3 commissioner of income tax(appeals)-3 panampilly nagar, kochi-682036. other present: cgc sri. p. vijayakumar. this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 31.01.2019, the court on the same day delivered the following: -2-judgmentthe petitioner, an assessee under the income tax act, onthe rolls of the 2nd respondent, questioned the ext.p1 assessment order, before the 3rd respondent. the petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader.3. i reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. it appears that he has alsofiled a stay petition. procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. therefore, i dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 3rd -3- respondent considers the stay petition. i also hope that the 3 rd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. sd/- dama seshadri naidu judge das appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: exhibit p1 copy of the assessment order relating to ay 2016-17. exhibit p2 coy of demand notice relating to ay 2016-17. exhibit p3 copy of appeal in form 35 exhibit p4 copy of petition for stay of collection of tax. exhibit p5 copy of demand notice.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 11TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 2915 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE CHOICE FOUNDATION CHOICE HOUSE, P.V.SREEDHARAN ROAD, KUMBALAM, KOCHI-682506 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.JOSE THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001 AND OTHERS. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), SANJUM TOWER, BEHIND CR BUILDING, KOCHI KERALA-682018. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-3 PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. OTHER PRESENT: CGC SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, on

the rolls of the 2nd respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also

filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 3rd -3- respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 3 rd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO AY 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COY OF DEMAND NOTICE RELATING TO AY 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL IN FORM 35 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2019 Same Parties The Choice Foundation vs Union of India Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu