1990 (7) TMI 91 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for writ of mandamus to deal with and dispose of applications under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act and stay realization of demands.
2. Allegation of failure to exercise judicial discretion by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in refusing to stay realization.
3. Contention that reasons for refusal to stay demand were invalid.
4. Challenge to the legality and validity of the orders refusing to stay realization.
5. Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to issue notices under section 221(1) of the Act.
6. Contestation of writ petition by respondents through affidavit-in-opposition.
7. Disclosure of assessment details and reliefs by the respondents.
8. Arguments presented by both parties in court.
9. Examination of impugned orders and notices of demand by the court.
10. Principles governing interference by the writ court in statutory authority decisions.
11. Consideration of materials on record and assessment figures for the three assessment years.
12. Disposal of applications for stay with reasons provided.
13. Court's conclusion on the merit of the writ petition and discharge of the rule.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner, a company, sought a mandamus for the disposal of applications under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act and to stay the realization of demands for specific assessment years. The petitioner challenged the refusal of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to stay realization, alleging a failure to exercise judicial discretion and invalid reasons for refusal. The petitioner contended that the refusal was illegal and that the Commissioner must act judicially under section 220(6).

2. The respondents contested the writ petition through an affidavit-in-opposition, providing details of the assessment history, reliefs granted, and actions taken by the income-tax authorities. The respondents disclosed the assessed amounts, reliefs, and factual figures for the relevant assessment years, denying certain allegations made by the petitioner.

3. Arguments were presented in court by Dr. D. Pal for the petitioner and Mr. R. C. Prasad for the income-tax authorities. Dr. Pal argued against the impugned orders, claiming they were unwarranted, while Mr. Prasad defended the actions of the income-tax authorities, justifying their decisions.

4. The court considered whether the impugned orders and notices of demand were legally flawed or perverse. It emphasized that the writ court does not sit in appeal over every statutory authority decision unless beyond jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice principles causing manifest injustice. The court cited a precedent to support its stance on interference with statutory authority decisions.

5. After examining the materials on record and the assessment figures for the relevant years, the court found that the applications for stay had been disposed of with reasons and concluded that there was no perversity in the orders. The court noted that the petitioner had obtained an ad interim order by providing a bank guarantee and found no legal basis for interference in the matter.

6. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, discharged the rule, and vacated all interim orders. The respondents were permitted to enforce the bank guarantee as per the law, and no costs were awarded in the judgment.