9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at as it may, we refused to grant any further adjournment and directed both of them to proceed with the hearing of their respective briefs. However, both of them expressed their inability to make submissions in support of either the References, and/or the Appeals and/or the Petition. Thereafter, Mr. Chandnani learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicants in the References, sought to place on record written submissions. However, we refused to take the same on record, as the copy of the same has not been forwarded to the Respondent Revenue. Taking these submissions would entail adjourning the hearing of the References/Appeals/Petition, as the Respondent Revenue would need to respond to the written submissions filed by the Applicant Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court by its order dated 9 August 1973. On the basis of the above statement made by the Advocate, the hearing of all these clubbed matters was being adjourned by the Court from time to time. This fact is not disputed by the Advocates appearing for Applicants/Appellant/Petitioner. 4. On 11 August 2016, when these clubbed matters reached hearing, we were again informed that these proceedings have been stayed by virtue of the order of the Apex Court dated 9 August 1973 in CMP No.3057 of 1973 and in support our attention was invited by Mr. Chandnani, the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants/Appellant/Petitioner, to the order of the Supreme Court, being Exhibit 'B' to the Petition. On perusing Exhibit 'B' , we n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Advocate appearing for the Petitioner before the Supreme Court as according to him, it was vital to these proceedings. Mr. Joshi, at that time, also informed us that he would be returning the References, as he may not be available to appear for the Petitioner from Monday onwards. At that time, Mr. Chandnani, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner/Applicants/Appellant, requested for some more time. This application was refused. We informed Mr. Chandnani that these matters pertained to the year 1991 and no further time can be granted and the Petitioner/Applicants in the References/Appellant in the Appeal should make suitable arrangements, in case Mr. Joshi is not available to proceed with the matter on Monday the 22 August 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to place on record written submissions. However, we refused to take the same on record, as the copy of the same has not been forwarded to the Respondent Revenue. Taking these submissions would entail adjourning the hearing of the References/Appeals/Petition, as the Respondent Revenue would need to respond to the written submissions filed by the Applicant Assessee particularly when both Advocates refuse to make oral submissions. Thus, in effect seeking adjournment indirectly, which we had already declined to grant. 10. In the above view, as the Applicants in the References, at whose instance the References are made, are unable to make any submissions in support of the References, we return the References unanswered. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
