9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition before this Court which is absolutely misconceived remedy availed by them. Were these officials trying to prove their superior wisdom over the wisdom of Tribunal and already rendered precedent or overawe the Tribunal by the intervention of the higher constitutional courts, even on a misconceived petition?. First raising unsustainable, illegal and high pitched demands and then seeking to coercively recover the same even showing scant regard to the orders passed by highest Tribunal under the Act and for that invoking the writ jurisdiction to seek support to their such effort is nothing but an utterly irresponsible and unfair behaviour. It is the lack of such discipline with the Government Officials which turns Government Departments as a major litigant in the Constitutional Courts, in turn depriving the Constitutional Courts to devote their time for looking into the causes of poor people, which deserve their time and attention - W.P. dismissed with exemplary costs on the officials involved in filing of this writ petition. The costs are quantified at ₹ 50,000/- to be paid by each of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-. - Writ Petition No. 12913/2017 ( T-IT ) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-2017. 5. This court called upon the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to file an Affidavit before this Court as to why the Revenue has chosen to challenge the said interim order passed by the ITAT before this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by way of present writ petition, as prima facie it appeared that the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal was in fair exercise of its discretion and apparently no good reason was found for the Revenue to challenge the said order before this Court. 6. In pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 02-01-2018, instead of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, a lower authority the Principal Commissioner, one Mr.Yogesh Pande Son of B.D.Pande, working as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2), Bengaluru, other than the Principal Commissioner who approved the sanction of filing of the present writ petition through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has filed an Affidavit before this Court today. While no order sanctioning or approving the action of filing of the present writ petition has been produced before this Court along with the said Affidavit, the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 3.32 Crores already paid by it and particularly when the appeal itself was fixed for hearing on 07-04-2017 i.e., shortly after the date of impugned order dated 10-03-2017 and there was absolutely no reason for the Revenue to assail the said interim order before this Court by filing this petition on 22-03-2017. 10. He has further produced before this Court the subsequent orders passed by the ITAT on 02-06-2017 and 13-10-2017 extending the said interim order for further periods and has pointed that when the said appeal was fixed before the ITAT on 22-11-2017 and 11-12-2017, the Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue sought time and adjournment to argue the said appeal before the ITAT and now hearing of the said appeal is fixed before the ITAT on 11-01-2018. He has also submitted before the Court that the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise V/S Dunlop India is not applicable to the present case in as much as the ratio of the said decision is to lay down certain guidelines for the Constitutional Courts while considering the matters for g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one can very clearly see that the entire demand raised by the authorities below prima facie was not even sustainable when once the controversy was apparently covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court and also the Bench of the Tribunal itself at Bengaluru, in favour of assessee. Therefore, the grant of absolute stay against the recovery would have been more appropriate in the circumstances, rather than calling upon the assessee to deposit a further sum of ₹ 2.00 Crores. The ITAT, perhaps to serve the interest of the Revenue leaned to some extent in favour of Revenue for the time being subject to the final decision of the appeal itself and chose to pass this order, which brought to the kitty of Revenue more than a sum of ₹ 5.00 Crores against a prima facie unsustainable demand of ₹ 22.17 Crores, still the Revenue did not feel satisfied and instead of pursuing hearing of the appeal before the ITAT, chose to file the present writ petition before this Court which is absolutely misconceived remedy availed by them. Were these officials trying to prove their superior wisdom over the wisdom of Tribunal and already rendered precedent or overawe the Tribunal by the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. 16. Seeking adjournments from the ITAT on the dates fixed by it for hearing the appeal itself which was apparently covered in favour of the respondent-assessee by the Departmental counsel adds insult to the injury. The irresponsible and uncoordinated manner in which authorities of the petitioner-Income Tax Department have displayed their dealing of the serious matters like invoking the constitutional remedy has prompted this Court to take up this matter to deprecate strongly such tendency on the part of the Revenue authorities and other Government Departments, who choose to avail constitutional remedies for not so good reasons at all, wasting the public money and court s time taken even to hear and reject such frivolous writ petitions. 17. Irrespective of the policy decisions taken at the highest levels of Government in the form of National Litigation Policy and CBDT Instructions restricting these authorities not to invoke superior courts even regular appellate jurisdiction with the small stakes and petitions not involving larger and important questions of law which require interpretation by the constitutional courts, the individual officers at their own lower level co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
