9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anklecha, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. J D Mistri, Sr Counsel with Mr. N D Sheth, Mr. Nitin Dhumal For Respondent :Mr. Vimal Gupta JUDGEMENT Per : S J Vazifdar, J : 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally. 2. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 are the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation), Pune, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer, respectively. Respondent No.6 is the Union of India, Ministry of Finance. 3. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the orders dated 22nd February, 2008, 26th March, 2008 and 14th March, 2012, passed by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 1, respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in KEC International Ltd. v. B. Balakrishnan Ors., 251 ITR 158 is well founded. 7. In accordance with what we are informed has been the practice for some time, the petitioner filed an application for stay before the Commissioner of Income-tax on 25th February, 2008. The same was dismissed on 26th March, 2008. 8. The petitioner then filed stay applications on 15th September, 2008, 1st December, 2008 and 13th April, 2009 before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is important to note that there has been no response to or a hearing in respect of these applications. 9. The petitioner did not deposit the amount as directed by the order dated 22nd February, 2008. However, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner to attend his office along with the details of taxes paid, if any, and an order dated 14th March, 2012, passed by him thereafter, directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs.4 crores latest by 25th March, 2012, failing which, it was stated, coercive action would be initiated against the petitioner. It was further stated that subject to the above payment, the demand for balance arrears shall remain stayed till the decision of the appeal or 30th June, 2012, whichever was earlier. In other words, therefore, even if the amount of Rs.4 crores is deposited by the petitioner and the appeal is not heard on or before 30th June, 2012, the stay to recover the balance amount is to stand vacated. 14. The order dated 14th March, 2012, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove facts, it is reasonable to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps for the recovery of the demand, but only to the extent of the actual recovery and appropriation of the petitioner's properties towards the demand. In other words, the respondents are not prevented from taking all other steps to protect the recovery of the demand, including attaching the petitioner's properties in accordance with law. 17. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by the following order :- (i) The orders dated 22nd February, 2008, 26th March, 2008 and 14th March, 2012, are set aside. (ii) The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax shall pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's application for stay under section 220(6) of the Act, uninfl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
