Gubarji Mathurji Thakor v. The Income Tax Officer

C/SCA/7226/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7226 of 2019 ==========================================================GUBARJI MATHURJI THAKOR VersusTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER ==========================================================Appearance:MR CHINTAN DAVE ADVOCATE FOR HLP ASSOCIATES LLP(9263) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 10/03/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and/or an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside the impugned recovery notice dated 13.03.2019 issued by respondent authority being bad in law. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the impugned recovery notice dated 13.03.2019 issued by the respondent authority. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner.” 2We take notice of the order dated 11[th] April 2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The order reads thus: “Heard Mr. Chintan Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner. Issue Notice returnable on 29[th] April, 2019. Till then, coercive recovery shall not be made pursuant to the notice dated 13.3.2019, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with the respondents on or before 26[th] April, 2019.” 3Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, with his usual fairness, submitted that his client has not been able to deposit a sum of Rs.20 Lakh on or before the date stipulated in the order referred to above. 4In view of such statement being made by Mr. Dave, we are of the view that we should not interfere with the impugned recovery notice dated 13[th] March 2019. This writ application, accordingly, fails and is hereby rejected. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) CHANDRESH (ILESH J. VORA,J)