O '1 v. Income Tax Officer And Anr

t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Amended Writ Petition (T) No.7752/2011 / l2- ;sr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURWRIT PETITION m No. 7752 of201l SB; Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:Shri G.N.Purohit with Shri Abhishek Oswal, Advocate for thepetitioner.Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on 07th day ofSeptember, 2012) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to hold the impugned orderdated 02.12.2011 asillegal and without jurisdiction, further, tohold that the order 22.05.2012 (Annexure P/6) passed by theIncome Tax Officer, Raipur, as illegal and without jurisdiction andin violation ofthe conditions laid down under Section 281B oftheIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short tthe Act, 1961') and to quash allthe orders of attachment made imder section 281B of the Act,1961. Shri Purohit, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submitsthat against the order dated 18.01.2012, passed in this petition,wherein interim reliefprayed for by the petitioner was rejected, anappeal being W.A. No.10772012, was filed and the learnedDivision Benchhas been pleased to issue notice to the respondents,without stay of the operation of the order of learned Single Judge.The learned Division Bench has simply issued notices and notpassed any order. On account of that, the Commissioner, IncomeTax, is not proceeding to consider the application of the petitioneron the ground that the matter is subjudice, thus, it has beenconsidered appropriate by him to maintam status quo pending thedecision ofthe Hon'ble Court on the above stated petition and writappeal, ofthepetitioner.; ^'•'^s^ Amit 8. /rt Shri Purohit further submits that the orders passed, which areunder challenge in this petition has already out-lived its life. Thus,theCommissioner,IncomeTax,bedirected todecide theapplication ofthe petitioner in accordance with law.The learned Division Bench, by order dated 09.04.2012, passed thefollowing order: "Heard on admission.Issue notice to the respondents.Steps within seven days.List it for further orders afiter fourweeks" On the other hand, Shri Dadariya, leamed counsel appearing forthe respondent/Revenue submits that the decision was not takenonly in view of pendency of the writ appeal and the writ petitionhowever, the Commissioner, Income Tax, may be directed toproceed[with][ the][ application][ filed][ by][ the]petitioner,[before][ him,][ in]accordance with law, on its own merits. Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Commissioner, Income Tax., isdirected to proceed with the application ofthe petitioner, pendingbefore him, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of threemonths. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-SatishK.AgnihotriJudge