9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dated March 8, 2004, issued by respondent No. 2 (Assessing Officer). It is also further prayed that the order made by the respondent-authorities under section 220(6) of the said Act be quashed. An order of assessment came to be made under section 143(3) of the said Act creating a demand of Rs. 608,01,81,325 vide order dated October 30, 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that against the said order an appeal has been preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same is pending even today. It appears that in view of the demand after adjustment raised by the Revenue, the petitioner approached different forums other than the appropriate forum, namely, the Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the Government of India shall set up a committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the committee and its clearance for litigation. Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the committee. Senior officers only should be nominated so that the committee would function with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a letter to the effect that as the case had been referred to the committee on disputes, no coercive action be taken against the appellant (assessee) till the matter was disposed of by the committee. Learned counsel contended that in view of this, coercive action need not be taken by the Revenue to recover the amount particularly as the second application dated March 9, 2004, is pending. However, we are of the view that when the clearance has been refused, there is no question of entertaining this petition. Learned counsel further submitted that in such eventuality the petitioner would be rendered as being without any remedy. Therefore, it was contended that despite the Supreme Court decisions, this court ought to interfere under article 226 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
