IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.550 OF 2009 PETITION NO.550 OF 2009 PETITION NO.550 OF 2009 M.Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre .. Petitioners vs The Assessing Officer & ors .. Respondents .. Mr.Firoz Andhyarujina, Sr.Counsel with Ms Sandhya Divekar i.b M/s Little & Co for Petitioner Dr.P.Daniel with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Respondents .. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I.Rebello and : F.I.Rebello and : F.I.Rebello and J.H.Bhatia, J.H.Bhatia, J.H.Bhatia, JJ JJ JJ DATED: DATED: DATED: 28th April, 2009 28th April, 2009 28th April, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioners in respect of Assessment years 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 considering the circular by the CBDT had moved the Assessing Officer not to execute the orders. The Assessing Officer passed an order rejecting the said application. Aggrieved the petitioners herein moved the Commissioner (Administrative) for stay of the recovery. The Commissioner granted stay upto 30th September, 2008. The petitioners applied for further continuance. The Commissioner did not extend the stay as similar issues for other Assessment years, are also in issues before this Court by way of a reference, for Assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. This Court continued the stay only up to 15th December, 2008. 2. Subsequent to that, the Assessing Officer by serving notices has attached or recovered moneys lying in the account of the petitioners. It is on account of that the present petition is filed. 3. The reliefs sought by the petitioners are to set aside the remand report dated 29th November, 2001 to the extent that it has travelled beyond the remand made by this Hon’ble Court. In so far as this relief is concerned, that issue can be agitated in the reference which is pending. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal by the Court on that count. The reference is yet to be decided. 4. In so far as the relief of refund of Rs.12.70 crores, the petitioner has sought to challenge the action of the respondents on various grounds as are set out in paragraph 5 of the petition. 5. In so far as contention nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, those are based on the circulars. The petitioner earlier had moved the Assessing Officer. That was rejected. The Commissioner (Administrative) granted stay till 30th September, 2008 which this Court continued up to 15th December, 2008. After this Court having not continued or extended the stay after 15th December, 2008 question of the authorities exercising further discretion not to give effect to the order of assessment in our opinion, would not arise. The circulars in such an event would be inapplicable. 6. In so far as contentions nos. 3,4 and 5 are concerned, once orders could be executed and that has been done after issuing notices may be sufficient time may not have been granted, there was nothing preventing the respondents as on the day of attachment and/or recovery from exercising their powers. 7. Considering the above, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise our Writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that if the petitioner succeeds ultimately on merits the respondents are bound to return the money along with interest if any. With the above observations, petition is disposed of. { J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J } J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J } J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J }