9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Decided in favour of assessee - Special Civil Application No. 3600 of 2013, Special Civil Application No. 3601 of 2013, Special Civil Application No. 3602 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2013 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr S. N. Soparkar, Sr Adv with Ms Bhoomi Thakore, Mr Monnal Davawala And Mr B S Soparkar, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta, Adv JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These petitions involve similar issues concerning same parties. They have, therefore, been heard together and would be disposed of by this common order. Facts may be noticed as emerging from Special Civil Application No.3600 of 2013. Petitioner, Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd ( the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On 26.3.2013, we had recorded such a contention of the petitioner s counsel while issuing notice and granting stay, in following terms: 2. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the assessment order was passed on 20.2.2013. On the same day impugned notice was issued. The petitioner is in the process of filing appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. On 22.3.2013 the petitioner wrote to the respondent pointing out that under Section 220 of the Act, ordinarily, recovery would not be commenced before 30 days of service of notice, whereas in the present case, only 15 days of time is granted and further that in terms of sub-Section (6) of Section 220 of the Act, the petitioner assessee may not be treated as an assessee in default. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a petition, the Assessing Officer has granted stay upto 31st July 2013. Learned counsel Shri Sudhir Mehta for the Revenue produced the original files in which on 4th March 2013, the respondent had recorded his brief reasons for curtailing the period of 30 days envisaged in section 220(1) of the Act. This was on the basis that as per the action plan decided by the CBDT, 30% of the demand raised during the year should be recovered in the financial year 2012-13. For such purpose, it was necessary to reduce the period of 30 days to 15 days so that the demand falls during the current financial year. Counsel for the Revenue, however, stated under instructions of the respondent, who is present before the Court, that no prior approval in writi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned in the notice: Provided that, where the Assessing Officer has any reason to believe that it will be detrimental to revenue if the full period of thirty days aforesaid is allowed, he may with the previous approval of the Joint commissioner direct that the sum specified in the notice of demand shall be paid within such period being a period less than the period of thirty days aforesaid as may be specified by him in the notice of demand. In the present case, we have serious doubt if the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, though not referred to in the affidavit in reply, could be stated to be sufficient to enable him to believe that it was detrimental to the revenue if the full period of 30 days was allowed. Further, admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
