2014 (10) TMI 750 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of transfer of cases from DCIT, Circle Shimla to ACIT/DCIT Central Circle-I, Chandigarh - Whether the execution/implementation of the orders would be a ground for dismissing the writ petitions at the threshold stage Held that -The writ petitioners have questioned the show cause notices and the orders on the ground that these are unconstitutional, illegal, bad in law and have resulted in depriving the petitioners from contesting their cases conveniently at Shimla. Whether the show cause notices and the orders impugned are bad in law, are liable to be quashed or otherwise and whether the writ petitions would lie - is to be determined after hearing the parties on merits - Following the decision in State of H.P. & ors. Vs. Prem Lal - the preliminary objection raised by the respondent fails and is rejected - the interim direction i.e. stay order granted is adversely affecting the respondent since the actions which are to be drawn in a time bound manner would become time barred or not, since the parties have not argued the cases on merits, it is not fair to return findings whether the stay is to be vacated or to be made absolute - it is made clear that in case any action becomes time barred in the interregnum, the period from the date of passing of the stay order shall be excluded, while computing the time limit - the writ petition is to be hear expeditiously.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to show cause notice and order transferring cases from one circle to another; Maintainability of writ petitions after implementation of impugned orders; Effect of interim direction on respondent; Expedited hearing of writ petitions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to show cause notice and order transfer
The petitioners challenged the show cause notice and order transferring their cases from one income tax circle to another. They argued that the transfer was illegal and deprived them of effective hearing, impacting their ability to contest their cases. The respondent filed replies resisting the writ petitions. The petitioners contended that the impugned notices and orders were unconstitutional, illegal, and deprived them of the opportunity to present their cases conveniently. The key question was whether the show cause notices and orders were lawful and if the writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue 2: Maintainability post-implementation of orders
The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petitions, citing that the impugned orders had been implemented, rendering the petitions infructuous. However, the petitioners argued that the legality of the notices and orders needed to be determined on merits, irrespective of their execution. The court referred to precedents where the mere implementation of orders did not preclude the court from examining the legality of those orders. The Apex Court's stance emphasized that implementing an order did not erase the challenge to its validity. The court rejected the respondent's objection, stating that the writ petitions needed to be heard on their merits.

Issue 3: Effect of interim direction on respondent
The respondent also raised concerns about the interim direction/stay order adversely affecting them by potentially causing time-barred proceedings. The court refrained from vacating or making the stay absolute, as the cases were not argued on merits. However, it clarified that any actions becoming time-barred during the interim period would have the time from the stay order's passing excluded from the calculation.

Issue 4: Expedited hearing of writ petitions
Acknowledging the respondent's concerns, the court decided to expedite the hearing of the writ petitions, listing them for a hearing on a specific date. This decision aimed to address the respondent's time-bound actions while ensuring a prompt resolution of the legal matters at hand.

In conclusion, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed the various issues raised in the writ petitions, emphasizing the need to examine the legality of the impugned notices and orders on their merits, irrespective of their implementation. The court also balanced the concerns of both parties regarding the interim direction and expedited the hearing process to provide a timely resolution to the legal dispute.