Indian Medical Trust, B-4 Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipurrajasthan v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur, Newcentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road,Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writs No. 11119/2018 Indian Medical Trust, B-4 Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, JaipurRajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur, NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road,Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. forMr. Anil Mehta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 20/07/2018 Order 1.The matter comes up on the application moved by thepetitioner for seeking clarification/modification of order dated01.06.2018 as the interim order passed by this Court has beeninterpreted differently by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 2.Vide order dated 01.06.2018 this Court passed followingorder:- “Notices were issued to the department,however, taking into consideration the urgencyof the matter, the case was directed to be listedon today. Service has already been effected on therespondent but no one appears on behalf of thedepartment even in the second round. Petitioner submits that they havechallenged the order passed by the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 12-AA(3) of the Act of 1961 whereby registration ofthe assessee trust has been canceled byinvoking Section 12-AA(3) of the Act of 1961w.e.f. 01.04.2006 vide order dated 16.01.2018. The appeal against order dated 16.01.2018is pending before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. On the basis of the order dated16.01.2018, the respondents have revised theassessment orders for the various years anddeposit the total demand of Rs. 73,71,46,730/-has been raised. It is submission of thepetitioner that registration of trust could not becanceled from retrospective date and thepetitioner has also deposited a sum of Rs.24,50,46,874/- as per the order of SettlementCommission, although, it is submitted that theSettlement Commission has failed to take noticeof the losses incurred for the various years andas per the petitioner, the total demand ofoutstanding tax comes to amount of Rs. 2.75crores only. The petitioner further submits that theITAT vide order dated 27.04.2018 has deferredthe matter for passing the orders on stayapplication for 02.07.2018 with a direction thatthe petitioner shall further deposit a sum of Rs.10 crores. It is submitted that there is no reasoncoming out forward for directing the petitioner todeposit the sum of Rs. 10 crores on or before13.07.2018 and the order passed by the ITAT isarbitrary. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions,this court finds that once the Tribunal is ceased with the matter relating to the question whetheran order of cancellation of registration could bepassed with retrospective effect, there was noreason for the Tribunal to have directed thepetitioner to deposit additional sum as directedvide its order dated 27.04.2018. Taking note of the fact that the petitionerhas already deposited the sum of Rs.24.50,46,874/-, the effect and operation oforder dated 27.04.2018 is stayed, during thependency of the writ petition.” Taking note of the aforesaid submissions,this court finds that once the Tribunal is ceased with the matter relating to the question whetheran order of cancellation of registration could bepassed with retrospective effect, there was noreason for the Tribunal to have directed thepetitioner to deposit additional sum as directedvide its order dated 27.04.2018. Taking note of the fact that the petitionerhas already deposited the sum of Rs.24.50,46,874/-, the effect and operation oforder dated 27.04.2018 is stayed, during thependency of the writ petition.” 3.The Tribunal was thus restrained from directing the petitionerto deposit additional sum as directed vide order dated27.04.2018, by staying the effect and operation of the order dated27.04.2018 obviously entire interim order of this Court refers toonly the direction again by the Tribunal for directing the petitionerto deposit sum of Rs.10 crore. It appears that the concernedmembers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal seem to haveinterpreted the interim order passed by this Court to mean thatthe order of stay granted by the Tribunal would mean that theentire stay order shall remain stayed and have interpreted thatthe said order dated 27.04.2018 stood vacated which could nothave been the intention of this Court nor such directions wereissued. The interpretation taken by the Tribunal is wholly perverse. 4.The Tribunal is required to interpret Court orders in the tenorin which they are passed. It appears that the concerned Membersof the Tribunal have further proceeded not to hear the appealurgently and have left the appeal to be heard in ordinary course.Taking note of the manner and method in which the order hasbeen passed while clarifying that the interim order passed by thisCourt is only with reference to the direction of payment of Rs.10 crores which is restrained, the appeal of the petitioner shall beheard by Bench which shall not be presided by Vijay Pal Rao andVikrem Singh Yadav and they shall not be part of it. 5.With the aforesaid directions, the order is clarified. 6.The application for clarification/modification is allowed. It is further clarified that the remaining payment shallremain stayed, till the disposal of the appeal. 7.At this stage, both the counsel submit that writ petition bedisposed of in the aforesaid terms and observations and timeperiod be laid down for disposal of the appeal. 8.Taking note of the submissions of both the counsel, it isdirected that the appeal be heard expeditiously and if possible bedecided not later than three months. 9.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. R.Vaishnav 50. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J