Cwp/1722/2016 Of Hpcl Mittal Energy Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 1722 of 2016 ( O&M)DATE OF DECI SI ON: 21. 07. 2016 HPCL Mi t t al Ener gy Li mi t ed ver sus …. . Pet i t i oner Assi st ant Commi ssi oner of I ncome Tax, Bat hi nda and anot her . . . . . Respondent s CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE DEEPAK SI BAL HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE DEEPAK SI BAL Pr esent :Mr . Aj ay Vohr a, Seni or Advocat e wi t hMr . Rohi t Jai n, Advocat e f or t he pet i t i onerMr . Rohi t Jai n, Advocat e f or t he pet i t i oner Mr s. Ur vashi Dhugga, Advocat e f or t he Revenue Mr s. Madhu Dayal , Advocat e f or r espondent - Bank. .. . S. J. VAZI FDAR, ACTI NGCHI EF JUSTI CE: The pet i t i oner seeks an or der quashi ng a not i ce dat ed04. 01. 2016 i ssued under Sect i on 226( 3) of t he I ncome Tax Act , 1961,a wr i t of mandamus di r ect i ng t he r espondent s t o r ef und an amount ofRs. 10. 50 cr or es, a wr i t r est r ai ni ng r espondent No. 2- St at e Bank ofI ndi a f r om t aki ng coer ci ve st eps f or r ecover y of t he t ax demandt i l l di sposal of i t s appeal bef or e t he I ncome Tax Appel l at eTr i bunal f or t he Assessment Year 2008- 09 and a wr i t of mandamusdi r ect i ng t he Tr i bunal t o di spose of t he appeal i n a t i me- boundmanner . The pet i t i on i s based essent i al l y on t he gr ound t hat t her ecover y of t he penal t y was made cont r ar y t o and i n vi ol at i on of ani nt er i m or der gr ant ed by t he Tr i bunal . I t i s not necessar y t o r ef ert o t he f act s i n det ai l . I t i s suf f i ci ent t o not e onl y a f ew f act s. 2.On 18. 02. 2014, t he Assessi ng Of f i cer passed an or derunder Sect i on 271( 1) ( c) i mposi ng a penal t y whi ch was af f i r med byt he or der of t he CI T ( Appeal s) dat ed 02. 07. 2014. The appel l antf i l ed an appeal bef or e t he Tr i bunal whi ch, by an or der dat ed30. 09. 2014, al l owed t he st ay appl i cat i on f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner .We ar e i nf or med t hat t he pet i t i oner sought a st ay of 180 days. Theor der , t her ef or e,was l i mi t ed t o 180 days. On 25. 03. 2015, t hepet i t i oner f i l ed anot her appl i cat i on f or st ay whi ch, by an or derdat ed 05. 06. 2015, was adj our ned si ne di e and t he Tr i bunal di r ect edt hat no coer ci ve measur es be t aken f or r ecover y of t he di sput eddemand i n t he meant i me and di r ect ed st at us- quo t o cont i nue. Ther ewas no t i me l i mi t of t he st ay or der . The appeal was hear d on26. 08. 2015. As t her ewas adi f f er ence bet ween t he member s, ar ef er ence was made on 06. 01. 2016 t o t he Pr esi dent of t he Tr i bunalf or pl aci ng t he appeal bef or e a t hi r d member . By an or der dat ed03. 02. 2016, t he t hi r d member not ed t hat t he Judi ci al Member and t heAccount ant Member , who had di f f er ed wi t h each ot her , had agr eedt hat t he st ay or der was r equi r ed t o be ext ended as t he del ay i ndeci di ng t he appeal was not at t r i but abl e t o t he pet i t i oner .Accor di ngl y, t he t hi r d member , by t he or der dat ed 03. 02. 2016,ext ended t he st ay by 180 days. 3.The pet i t i oner ’ s gr i evance i s t hat despi t e t he st aygr ant ed on 05. 06. 2015 and on 03. 02. 2016, t he r espondent s i ssued t hesai d r ecover y not i ce under Sect i on 226( 3) and pr oceeded t o r ecovert he amount l yi ng t o t he cr edi t of t he pet i t i oner i n t he r espondentNo. 2- Bank. 4.We wi l l assume t hat t he or der dat ed 05. 06. 2015 was notl i mi t ed i n t i me and t hat , t her ef or e, r ecover y of t he penal t y wascont r ar y t o t he or der . I n our vi ew, however , t her e was no wi l f ul 3.The pet i t i oner ’ s gr i evance i s t hat despi t e t he st aygr ant ed on 05. 06. 2015 and on 03. 02. 2016, t he r espondent s i ssued t hesai d r ecover y not i ce under Sect i on 226( 3) and pr oceeded t o r ecovert he amount l yi ng t o t he cr edi t of t he pet i t i oner i n t he r espondentNo. 2- Bank. 4.We wi l l assume t hat t he or der dat ed 05. 06. 2015 was notl i mi t ed i n t i me and t hat , t her ef or e, r ecover y of t he penal t y wascont r ar y t o t he or der . I n our vi ew, however , t her e was no wi l f ul di sobedi ence on t he par t of t he r espondent s i n havi ng r ecover ed t heamount . They wer e under t he i mpr essi on t hat t he or der dat ed05. 06. 2015 was oper at i ve onl y f or 180 days, whi ch i s t he per i odst i pul at ed i n t he Act . Even assumi ng t hat t he or der dat ed05. 06. 2015 was i n exi st ence, t hi s woul d, at t he hi ghest , be onl y abona f i de er r or i n per cept i on on t he par t of t he of f i cer . Ther e i sno quest i on of cont empt . I n any event , an af f i davi t has been f i l edby t he of f i cer apol ogi zi ng f or t he same. Even assumi ng t hat t heact i on was cont r ar y t o t he or der , t he apol ogy ought , i n t heci r cumst ances, t o be accept ed. 5.I t i s not necessar y t o consi der t he ef f ect of t he or derdat ed 05. 06. 2015 f or ul t i mat el y by t he or der dat ed 03. 02. 2016, t hef i nal st ay or der was passed whi ch was r est r i ct ed t o onl y 180 days.Thi s per i od woul d come t o an end on 02. 08. 2016. 6.I n t he ci r cumst ances, t he ends of j ust i ce woul d be metby f ol l owi ng or der : - I n t he event of t he st ay bei ng ext ended by t he Tr i bunalf or any per i od, t he r espondent s shal l r ef und t he amount r ecover ed,but subj ect t o any condi t i ons i mposed by t he Tr i bunal . 7.The pet i t i on i s accor di ngl y di sposed of ( S. J. VAZI FDAR) ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE 21. 07. 2016par kash* ( DEEPAK SI BAL)JUDGE