THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6635 OF 2011 Date:21.03.2011 Between: M/s.Sri Venktateswara Sponge & Power (P) Limited, Factory at 310/B, Industrial Estate, Merlapaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, Represented by its Managing Finance Mr.S.Srinivasulu, S/o.Veerabhadraiah, Aged about 40 years .. Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Income Tax Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6635 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri M.V.J.K.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and, at their request, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the production of Sponge-iron and in generation of energy. For the assessment year 2006-2007, the assessing authority (first respondent) passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 18.12.2008 determining an income of Rs.3,73,48,526/-. The petitioner’s tax liability was determined as Rs.1,25,71,513/- and after adding interest under Section 234 B and C, the amount payable by the petitioner was determined as Rs.1,58,67,222/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the fourth respondent before whom the appeal is said to be still pending. They also filed an application for stay which was rejected by the Commissioner. On being asked to show the source of power for the Commissioner to pass an order rejecting the petitioner’s request for stay, Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, would fairly state that the Income Tax Act does not explicitly confer any such power, and the order passed by the Commissioner was an administrative order. We see no reason to examine the validity of such an administriative order as the remedy prescribed under the Income Tax Act is for a person aggrieved to file an application before the assessing authority under Section 220(6) of the Act which the petitioner had invoked by way of an application on 06.03.2009. In the meanwhile, the respondents issued a Garnishee notice to M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Hyderabad, on 03.11.2010 from whom the petitioner had purchased coal. The grievance of the petitioner is that it had paid advance to M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Hyderabad, for supply of coal, and the action of the respondents in adjusting the said amount towards tax allegedly due would result in bringing the petitioner’s production to a grinding halt causing them immense hardship and irreparable injury. Since an application filed by the petitioner, under Section 220(6) of the Act, is pending consideration of the assessing authority, we consider it appropriate to direct him to dispose of the said application on or before 25.03.2011. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, undertakes to inform the assessing authority of his obligations under this order. As the assessing authority is now required to pass an order within four days, we see no reason to accede to the petitioner’s request that the Garnishee order be stayed in the interregnum. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21.03.2011 KH