Ivan Singh v. Bakre, Jj.-Date:7Th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 183 OF 2012 IVAN SINGH ... Petitioner VersusTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent Mr. J.P. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amira A. Razaq,Advocate for the petitioner.Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the respondent. P.C: -Coram:S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &U. V. BAKRE, JJ.-Date:7th March, 2012 This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaimpugns the attachment order that is levied on the bank account andthe coercive measures initiated by the department so as to recover theamount under the demand. 2. In the writ petition itself the petitioner assessee has pointed out that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment dated12/12/2011 an appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act1961 has been filed and the Appellate Authority is the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals). 3. An application for stay of the said demand was made in thepending appeal and a copy of the stay application is annexed atAnnexure "G" to the writ petition. 4. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitsthat this writ petition was filed in this Court on 22/2/2012. After the writ petition was filed, the stay application has been disposed of exparty and without any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Equally what the petitioners are communicated is the order of theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 2/3/2012 deciding arectification application filed on 14/12/2011. Even this application isdisposed of without affording any opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner. 5. All that the petitioner prays is that he may be heard on thequestion of stay, otherwise even the pending appeal would berendered infructuous. 6. After hearing Mr. Pardiwalla and Mrs. Dessai at some length, weare of the view that the petitioner desires only an opportunity to seekinterim stay in the pending appeal. 7. That request made by the petitioner in the given facts andcircumstances appears to be reasonable. 8. In view thereof, if the stay applicaiton has been disposed of in the absence of the petitioner, as alleged, then, we revive and restore thestay application for disposal afresh by the Appellate Authority asexpeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the stay application,there will be a stay against recovery of the amounts under the subjectdemand by coercive measures. This order is without prejudice to therights and contentions of both sides and we clarify that we have notgone into the merits of the contentions in so far as the demand andrecovery is concerned, they are kept open. 10. There will be an ad-interim stay against recovery by coercivemeasures pending further orders in the stay application and whichad-interim stay will continue for a period of two weeks from the dateof communication of final orders in the stay application to thepetitioner. However, this does not prevent the petitioner/assesseefrom seeking other or further reliefs as are permissible in law. Allthe contentions of both sides are kept open. 11. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms with no orderas to costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ap/- U. V. BAKRE, J.