Both Writ Appeals v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-Ii, Income Tax Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.11.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.A.Nos.1540 and 1541 of 2014 andM.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 M/s.Indowind Energy Ltd.,rep by its Company Secretary,Kothari Buildings, 4[th] Floor,114, M.G.Road,Chennai-600 034. .. Appellant in both writ appeals Vs. 1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-II, Income Tax Department, 121,Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-II, Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range II, Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(3) Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.6. The Tax Recovery Officer-II, Company Range II Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034... Respondents in both writ appeals These writ appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of LettersPatent against the order dated 25.09.2014 made in W.P.Nos.26134 and26135 of 2014 for the issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus tocall for the records of the 5th respondent in PAN : AAACII1806M/2014-2015, quash the impugned orders dated 2.8.2014 and consequentlydirect the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents not to proceedfurther in the matter of recovery of the disputed arrears pendingdisposal of the first appeals before the 3rd respondent relating tothe assessment years 2011-12 and 2008-09 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.S.Sridhar- - - - -COMMON JUDGMENT Since both writ appeals are directed against the common orderdated 25.09.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.26134 and 26135 of 2014 and alsoin view of commonality of the issue involved, these writ appeals arebeing considered and decided by this common judgment. 2.The appellant, who is the writ petitioner before the writcourt, questioned the legality of the order dated 2.8.2014 in PAN: /2014-2015 and further sought a direction to therespondents 1 to 5 not to proceed further in the matter of recoveryof the disputed arrears pending disposal of the appeals before thethird respondent relating to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2008-09respectively. 3.The writ court, having considered the fact that a windingup petition is pending consideration on the file of the Company Courtin C.P.No.172 of 2011 and an interim order of injunction has alreadybeen granted and also keeping in view of the hardship, modified thecondition imposed by the third respondent while granting stay during the pendency of the first appeals, that the petitioner should pay 20%of the total demand within a period of six months in equal monthlyinstalments commencing from October, 2014. The instant intra-courtappeals are directed against the said order. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitsthat since a petition for winding up is pending before the CompanyCourt, the appellant company is not in a position even to pay 20% ofthe total demand in six equal monthly instalments. 5.We have examined the facts and also taken intoconsideration the liberal view taken by the learned Single Judge ingranting six instalments for payment of only 20% of the total demand.In view of the pendency of the winding up petition, it cannot be heldat this stage that the petitioner/appellant is immune from payment oftax. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, we are of theconsidered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learnedSingle Judge is just and proper, warranting no interference. 6.The writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequentlyconnected miscellaneous petitions are closed. vvk -s/d- Assistant Registrar( ) Dt:10/12/2014 True Copy Sub-Assitant Registrar To 5.We have examined the facts and also taken intoconsideration the liberal view taken by the learned Single Judge ingranting six instalments for payment of only 20% of the total demand.In view of the pendency of the winding up petition, it cannot be heldat this stage that the petitioner/appellant is immune from payment oftax. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, we are of theconsidered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learnedSingle Judge is just and proper, warranting no interference. 6.The writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequentlyconnected miscellaneous petitions are closed. vvk -s/d- Assistant Registrar( ) Dt:10/12/2014 True Copy Sub-Assitant Registrar To 1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-II, Income Tax Department, 121,Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-II, Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range II, Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(3) Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 6. The Tax Recovery Officer-II, Company Range II Income Tax Department, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.+2 ccs to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR 56751+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, Advocate SR 56796ala(co)prk15/12W.A.Nos.1540 and 1541 of 2014