9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... territory of Gujarat. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are the Union of India and other income-tax authorities. By order dated December 1, 1989, this court (coram : R. C. Mankad, Actg. C. J., and R. A. Mehta J.) has issued rule and granted ad interim relief. Today, the matter has come up before us for hearing as to interim relief. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court as far as the prayers against respondent No. 7, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, is concerned. The Orissa Forest Corporation Limited being outside the territorial limits of Gujarat and the action of deducting the tax at source having taken place at Bhuvaneshwar or at any rate outside the territory of Gujarat, it is very doubtful that this court will have jurisdiction to issue a writ against respondent No. 7. Simply because the petitioners are being assessed to income-tax within the territory of Gujarat, it cannot be said that any cause of action arises against respondent No. 7, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, within the territory of the State of Gujarat. In the petition, nowhere it is averred that any of the actions or activities of respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records are located is to delay prompt return and contest. We do not desire to probe further into the question whether the writ petition was filed by design or accident in the Calcutta High Court, when the office of the company is in the State of Punjab and all the principal respondents are in Delhi. But we do feel disturbed that such writ petitions are often deliberately filed in distant High Courts, as part of a manoeuvre in a legal battle, so as to render it difficult for the officials at Delhi to move applications to vacate stay where it becomes necessary to Me such applications." In the facts of the present case, the principal place of business of the petitioners is within the territory of Gujarat. But, as far as the alleged illegal action of deduction of tax at source by respondent No. 7 is concerned, the entire transaction has taken place outside the territory of Gujarat. At this stage, it is respondent No. 7 who will be vitally affected by the interim relief. Of course, the money that may be collected by respondent No. 7 may be required to be credited to the appropriate account head of the Central Government. But the question to be examined is whether any part of the caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the presumption of constitutionality of the statutory provisions does not stand displaced. In taxation matters, ordinarily, an interim relief staying the recovery of amount of tax should not be granted. This is the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das [1984] 146 ITR 624. The Supreme Court has observed as follows (at page 625): "Normally, the High Courts should not, as a rule, in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution grant any stay of recovery of tax save under very exceptional circumstances. The grant of stay, in such matters, should be an exception and not the rule." The petitioners have not pointed out any exceptional circumstance which would entitle them to special treatment. The petitioners have not made out any "exceptional" case so as to call for departure from the normal rule laid down by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 135. The Supreme Court has observed as follows (p. 138) "It is, therefore, necessary for the courts to be circumspect in the matter of granting interim relief, more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade. It may be so, because the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court might not have been brought to the notice of the court. Moreover, no reasons are assigned as to how the learned judges were persuaded to deviate from the normal rule of not granting interim relief against recovery of amounts of tax. Be it noted that this normal rule is laid down by the Supreme Court. With utmost respect to the learned judges of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, we do not find any reason to deviate from the normal rule of not granting stay against recovery of amount of tax. Moreover, in the instant case, as indicated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the petition is not even maintainable in this High Court against respondent No. 7, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited. In the modern democratic set up, the Governments-local, State and Central-are modified versions of "service corporations" of which all the people in the community are members and the principal object of the Governments is to serve the people. In our country, the principal object of the Government would be to achieve the goal of establishing an egalitarian society as envisaged by the Constitution. Under our Constitution, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
