Block, New Delhi-110 001 v. M. Kanade &U. V. Bakre,Jj.date: - 4 Th March, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOAWRIT PETITION NOS.148 AND 149 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO.148 OF 2013. Mr. Sadiq Sheikh,Aged about 55 years,Indian National, residing atOdxel Villa, Plot No.1,H.No.22/412, Near DonBosco, Odxel, Talegao, Goa. ..Petitioner.Vs.1.The Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle,Pundalik Niwas, Rua-deQurem, Panaji Goa2.The Tax Recovery Officer,Central Range 1,4[th] floor,Central Avenue BuildingAnnexe, Queens Road,Banglore-560 0013.The Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), Range-VI, Income TaxOffice, Bangalore.4.The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central, Bangalore.5.Union of India,Ministry of Finance, NorthBlock, New Delhi-110 001...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2013 Mrs. Sadia Sheikh,Aged about 56 years,Indian National, residing atOdxel Villa, Plot No.1,H.No.22/412, Near DonBosco, Odxel, Talegao, Goa,through her duly constitutedPOA, Mr. Sadiq Sheikh, Majorof age, residing at Odxel,Taleigao, Goa...Petitioner.Vs.1.The Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle,Pundalik Niwas, Rua-deQurem, Panaji Goa2.The Tax Recovery Officer,Central Range 1,4[th] floor,Central Avenue Building Annexe, Queens Road,Banglore-560 001 3.The Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), Range-VI, Income TaxOffice, Bangalore. 4.The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central, Bangalore.Central, Bangalore. 5.Union of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. ..Respondents. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj P. Pai Vernekar, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions.Ms. A. Dessai, Advocate for the respondents in both the petitions. Coram:- V. M. KANADE &U. V. BAKRE,JJ.Date: - 4 th March, 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V. M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3.The grievance of the petitioners is that this Court was pleased to grant stay to the abrupt demand of the respondents by order dated 26/02/2013 in Writ Petitions No.128 and 129 of 2013. The respondents have proceeded to attach the properties of the petitioners which is in direct violation of the orders passed by this Court. 4.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that unfortunately stay order could not be communicated and because of lack of communication, the said order of attachment was passed. 5.In our view, it would be appropriate, therefore, if the said order of attachment is set aside. Hence, the order of attachment is set aside. Writ Petitions accordingly are allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). 6.In view of unconditional apology tendered by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, no case is made out for taking action against the respondents in terms of prayer clause (B). 7.Interim order shall continue for a period of two weeks after the decision of CIT(Appeals), if any adverse decision is taken. 8.With these directions, Writ Petitions stand disposed of. V. M. KANADE, J. SMA U. V. BAKRE, J.