9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge before this Court was confined to the notice dt. 6th Nov., 1997 issued under s. 226 (3) of the Act addressed to M/s Synthetics Chemicals Ltd. Bareilly. The impugned notice, inter alia, recites that the block assessment under s. 158BC r/w s. 158BD of the Act has been made on 30th Sept., 1997 in the case of the petitioner and the demand of income-tax was created at Rs. 4,56,20,628. The notice of demand has been duly served upon the petitioner on 4th Oct., 1997. Thus, the demand of income-tax was payable on 4th Nov., 1997 after the expiry of 30 days from the service of notice of demand. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that notice read as under: "2. You have intimated by your letter dt. 11th Aug., 1997 that total amount of Rs. 99,31,688 is payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second contention of the petitioner was that although the petitioner could approach the Tribunal for stay of the recovery proceedings pending decision of the appeal before it, but that remedy was not efficacious and was futile, for, the Tribunal would not decide the stay application so long the matter was pending before the CIT, Central, Kanpur, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner referred hereinabove. 3. We have considered these submissions carefully, but no case for interference has been made out. In the application dt. 7th Nov., 1997 addressed to the CIT, Central, Kanpur (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), it is averred, inter alia, that the notice under s. 226(3) be withdrawn because an entity called M/s Good-luck C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it, if an application is made in that behalf and a case is made out for an interference. The petitioner on its own showing has not adopted that course so far. What would be the reaction of the Tribunal, if such an application is made by the petitioner, it is not for this Court to speculate and to proceed on that basis. It is only after the petitioner has approached the Tribunal that a question might arise about the validity of the order that may be passed by it. No such situation arises for the present. As the petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek redressal of its grievances before such forum, the petitioner may be advised in the matter. We see no justification to interfere with the impugned notice dt. 6th May, 1997. For what ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
