SCA/313019/1996 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3130 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. A. PUJ AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA ========================================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? ========================================================= = MUNI PENDAWALA D - Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents ========================================================= = Appearance : MR MR BD KARIA FOR MR RK PATEL for Petitioner. SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No.1. MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent Nos.2 - 3. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent Nos.4 - 5. ========================================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. A. PUJ and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA Date : 28/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/313019/1996 2/5 JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside two orders dated 17.11.1995 passed by the respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhavnagar Range, Bhavnagar, under Section 272-A(2)(g) read with Section 272-A(3)(c) [Exhibits C & C1 to the petition]. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside two notices dated 26.03.1996 issued by the respondent No.3 – Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle, Bhavnagar on the Mercantile Cooperative Bank & Vardhman Cooperative Bank attaching the accounts of the petitioner [Exhibits J & K to the petition]. 2. This Court has issued “Rule” on 26.04.1996 and ad interim relief was granted directing the petitioner to pay Rs.40,000=00 to the Department and on depositing the amount, the impugned order was ordered to be stayed. The Court has also clarified that after the amount was deposited, there would not be any attachment on the bank accounts. On 06.05.1996, this Court passed further order taking the affidavit filed by the petitioner on record and observing that the petitioner has deposited the amount as directed by this Court and the impugned order was stayed during SCA/313019/1996 3/5 JUDGMENT the pendency and final hearing of the petition. 3. Despite the fact that the rule was made returnable, till this date the matter could not be taken up for final disposal. Because of the pendency of the petition, it appears that the appeals filed by the petitioner against the orders of penalty are still pending before the CIT (Appeals). In any case, the petition is pending before this Court for not less than 12 years and it requires to be disposed of by this Court. 4. Mr.B.D.Karia, learned advocate appearing for Mr.R.K.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, at the outset, made it clear that he is not inviting any order so far as challenge to penalty orders is concerned as the appeals are still pending before the CIT (Appeals). He has, however, submitted that in view of the challenge to the impugned notices issued by the Income Tax Officer, TDS Circle, Bhavnagar, which have been stayed by this Court by passing interim order and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts, which were attached, was already removed consequent upon the order passed by this Court, interim relief may be made final so that the petitioner can proceed with the appeals pending before SCA/313019/1996 4/5 JUDGMENT the CIT (Appeals). 5. Mrs.Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue has, however, submitted that since the appeals are pending before the CIT (Appeals), at the most, the Court should direct the CIT (Appeals) for disposal of these appeals and no stay should be granted as regards the demand raised against the petitioner. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. We have also perused the orders passed by Assessing Officer. 7. Since the appeals are pending, we are not going into merits of the matter and since demand is already stayed earlier by this Court by way of interim order and pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.40,000=00, we are of the view that till the appeals are decided by the CIT (Appeals), no further recovery should be enforced against the petitioner. 8. In above view of the matter and without expressing any SCA/313019/1996 5/5 JUDGMENT opinion on the merits of the matter, we are hereby disposing of this petition directing the CIT (Appeals) to dispose of the appeals, which are pending before him for the years under consideration and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. We make it clear that till the appeals are decided, no recovery should be enforced against the petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid directions and observations, this petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs. [K.A. Puj, J.] [Bankim N. Mehta, J.] R a j e n d r a