In The Matter Of v. Fgi

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No.\‘0\of 2014 In the matter of PETITIONERS: M/s.Chhattisgarh State Power HoldingCompanyLimited(hereinafterreferred‘thetoasCSPHCL’)dulyincorporatedunder the provisionsof the CompaniesAct,1956having' itsofficeatVidyutBhawan,Danganiya,P.S.8tP.O.DanganiyaatRaipur,ChhattisgarhthroughItsAuthorizedSignatoryandAdditionalGeneralManager(Finance)ArivindChandrakarS/ oKRChandrakar,agedabout46years,residentofVidyutSewaBhawan,GroundFloor,Danganiya,Raipur(C.G.). VERSUS (1) (2) g/ Deputy Commissioner of Incdme—Tax,Central Revenue Building,Circle 2(1),Raipur—49200 1.CommissionerofIncomeTax,CentralRevenueBuilding,CivilLines, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.)[492001]Union of India, Ministry ofFinance, Through theSecretary, North Block, NewDelhi—l lO OO l. Fgi Before:Hon[’ble]the Chief Justice and His Companion Judges ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Chhattisgarh atBilasgur.gritPetition under Articles 226of theConstitutionofIndiafor issuance of suitable directions, orders or Writsincluding writs in the nature of Mandamus Certiorari etc. _The< humhh» m WWW‘>[wmm] mum mnma J/§//l/E1[201] mmwéigwsn ' ,mmawmv\_ %mana‘a “aw“ ‘ SBHon’ble Shrl Manlndra Mot an Shrivas'tava'’16 9 2014 J Shri Neeiabh Dubey, couns el for the petitioner.,Shri Anénd Dahariya, counsei for the responeents-revenue.Heard on admission. The’petitioner has filed‘thissptitione[aggrieved][ by][ th]eactionoftherespondents—revenue authority‘iprocdeeingto recoverthetaxdmeandbyadoptingcoercweprocessofissumg garnisehenoticeand ataingtchaccounts of the petitioner Learnedcounselfortheptitiornesusbmit tahttheptitioenerhasfiled an appeal before the ApelplatTribunal Bchenat RpuraianlogWith anapplication for stay against thedeand. Hvr,oweeduetonnaaibilito-vlayofBenchat Raipur,hearing has notaken place.He subsmit» thepetitionerhave also made efforts to skeeh .agrinof themartte beforetehPialrincp;Bench at Mumbai, but till datede ptie all e,fforts hengari could not totakeplace.[According][ to][ learned]cousnIforthe petier,tionagaistntotal deadmn.ofRs‘373crores;thepetitieronhavealadreypaidRs.123 coranresdrespbndents have received the amuntbut tangkiantagdvae of thepresent‘ptsituation,therespondentshavedoedcoerciveseptsadneventheaccountsofthepetitionerwhciisapbulicundertaking,havebeenattachedwhichiscausmgserios tninconveenceandcompconsliatiin‘ smooth operation of the CompanyOn the other handlearnedonusel fortherespoentnds ssubmit tthaonce there is an order passed aga ntsthepeetitionrtheptitiorene[is]liable'’to pay tax and mere filing of apepadoes nto peoeratas sayt Acodingcrtolearnedcounselfor the revee,nuhe penetitior hsapaidaverymeeagramount and any amount whichisayabelandpaidby heetiitptioner's a WNW ‘Pravsen mm W201 m mm§i§iw ‘, mm %@mv‘asaiiwm liable to be refunded to be refunded be refunded refunded WNW ‘Pravsen mm W201 m mm§i§iw ‘, mm %@mv‘asaiiwm liable to be refunded to be refunded be refunded refunded liable to be refunded to be refunded be refunded refundedin case pet‘ioner succeeds in appeal. Therefore, thepetitioner[is][ net][ entitled][ to]anyiulgenoe of this Court and the petitionisliable. to be dismissed.It is not in dispute that the petitioner aggrieVed by the order passedby the Commissioner of incomeax (Appealihave med an appeal beforethe income Tax-Appellate TribunlRaipu'r (ITAT)but as the Circuit Benchis not functionalthe case is notelng taken upLearned counsel for therespondents Revevnedoesnot{sputethat‘thepetitionerhavealreadyI‘paid[30%][ of][ the][ demand]lt has beeninform‘ed thathe accounts of the petitioner have been_attachedwhichhasresultedinseriousdifficultiesandcomplicationsinsmooth functioning of the petitionr~ CompanyTaking into conSiderationte submissions made by learned counselfor the partiesparticularly[taking][ into][ conSideration][ that][ the]petitioner[is][ a]State undertaking Company and have already paid substantial amount tothe respondents and the applicat on for stay has not come up for hearingbefore the ITATit would be expdientin the interest of justice to protect'thepetitioneragainst anycoervesteps.till, theapplicationforstayisconsidered by the ITAT Accordingly this writ petitiois finally disposed of with direction thaton petittoners depositing a furtheamount of Rs 3 croresthe respondentsshall allowthe petitioner to opereits accounts and shaii not take furthercoercive steps towards recoveryf the balance amount of tax demandedfrom the petitionertill the petitionrs application for stay is decrded by the7 ITATcoercive steps towards recoveryf the balance amount of tax demandedfrom the petitionertill the petitionrs application for stay is decrded by the7 ITAT