1 CAW14149/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO.14149 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.530 OF 2009 The Phoenix Mills Limited ..Petitioner. Vs. The Union of India and others ..Respondents. .... Mr.Prakash Shah i/b M/s.PDS Legal for the Applicant in CA(st.) No.14149 of 2010 and for the Petitioner in WP 530 of 2009. Mr.J.B.Mishra for Respondents 1 to 6. Mr.J.J.Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Naik, Ms.Hemangi Abhyankar and Mr.Sumit Shukla i/b Naik, Naik & Co. for Respondent No.7. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 8 July 2010. P.C. : 1. Prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application is for carrying out an amendment to the Petition. All the Respondents have been served. There is no objection to the amendment on behalf of any of the Respondents. In any event, having regard to the nature of the controversy, we see no reason as to why the amendment should not be granted. Prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application is accordingly allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within a period of one week from today. 2 CAW14149/2010 Prayer clause (b) of the Civil Application reads as follows : “(b) pending hearing and final disposal of the above Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to, by an interim order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court, direct the members of the Respondent No.7 to comply with the interim order dated 30th July, 2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.1263 of 2008.” 2. Essentially the submission before the Court is that the Seventh Respondent, which is the original petitioner in Writ Petition 1263 of 2008 be directed to comply with the interim order passed by the Division Bench on 30 July 2008. By the order of this Court, there was a direction that in the event that a demand of service tax is made under the provisions of Section 65(90a), Section 65(105)(zzzz) and Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended in 2007 in respect of the premises of the members of the Petitioner, such members of the Petitioner shall file an undertaking in the Court stating that in the event that the challenge is disallowed, they shall make payment of service tax due and payable in accordance with these provisions as may be directed by the Court. Certain consequential directions were issued in regard to the transfer of premises to which it is not necessary to advert at this stage. In paragraph 4 of the order of this Court it has been directed that on the undertaking (as stated in paragraph 2 3 CAW14149/2010 of the order) being filed by the members of the Petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken by the Revenue for the recovery of the service tax in respect of the premises of those members of the Petitioner. Reading the order as it stands, it is evident that the restraint on taking coercive steps was to operate only if an undertaking is filed by the members of the Seventh Respondent (the original Petitioner) in terms of the directions issued by the Court in the interim order dated 30 July 2008. In the event that no undertaking as directed is filed, the restraint on taking coercive steps for the recovery of service tax shall cease to operate and the Revenue would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 3. In the circumstances, the relief as sought in prayer clause (b) of the Civil Application cannot be granted at this stage. 4. We, however, clarify on the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant that it would be open to the Applicant to take out an appropriate application for intervention and for other reliefs in the writ petition filed by the Seventh Respondent (Writ Petition 1263 of 2008). Prayer clause (c) of the Civil Application is not pressed at this stage, by counsel. The Civil Application is accordingly rejected. 4 CAW14149/2010 Writ Petition to be placed on 23 July 2009. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)