P C Financial Services Private Limited v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Inv.) - 8 (2) And Ors

$~21 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 7546/2022 P C FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Arvind Nayar, Sr.Advocate withMr.Ajay Bhargava, Ms.VanitaBhargava, Mr.Atul Pandey, Mr.HirakMukhopadhyay and Mr.Milind Jain,Advocates. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) - 8 (2) AND ORS. ..... RespondentsThrough:Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.StandingCounsel with Mr.Shailendera Singh,Jr.Standing Counsel and Mr.EkanshDubey, Advocate. Date of Decision: 04[th]July, 2022 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): CM APPL.27995/2022 1.Present application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seekingmodification of the order dated 31[st]May, 2022 passed by this Court byrelying on the order dated 31[st]May, 2022 passed by a learned Single JudgeofthisCourtinW.P.(C)8514/2022,directingtheDirectorateofEnforcement to release a further amount of Rs. 25 crores in favour of the W.P.(C) No.7546/2022 Petitioner to meet its essential expenditure as well as towards salaries ofemployees. 2.At the outset, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that thepresent application is unsustainable, as the orders dated 17[th]December, 2021assailed in the present petition issued under Section 132(9B) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) have expired on 17[th]June, 2022 due to operationof law. She states that since the subsequent orders dated 16[th]June, 2022under Section 281B of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer, being ACIT,Central Circle-25, New Delhi have neither been challenged nor theAssessing officer has been impleaded, as a respondent, the presentproceedings are infructuous. 3.Learned counsel for the Respondents further states that no amount hasbeen released by the Directorate of Enforcement in pursuance to the orderdated 31[st]May, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)8514/2022. 4.She also states that an application has been filed by the EnforcementDirectorate before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 7551/2022 assailing thePetitioner’s conduct of approaching the learned Single Judge of this Court inW.P.(C) 8514/2022 even when the Supreme Court is seized of thecontroversy, on the ground of ‘forum shopping’. 5.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seriously refutes thecontention of ‘forum shopping’. He states that WP(C) 8514/2022 had beenfiled as it pertains to a different cause of action. He, however, admits that inview of the subsequent orders dated 16[th]June, 2022 under Section 281B ofthe Act passed by the Assessing Officer, being ACIT, Central Circle-25,New Delhi, the petitioner would need to file a fresh writ petition. W.P.(C) No.7546/2022 Page 2 of 3 6.This Court is of the view that as the impugned orders dated 17[th]December, 2021 have expired on 17[th]June, 2022 due to operation of law,the present writ petition is infructuous. 7.Accordingly, the present writ petition along with application isdisposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh proceeding inaccordance with law to challenge the orders dated 16[th]June, 2022 passedunder Section 281B of the Act. It is clarified that this Court has notexpressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The rights andcontentions of all the parties are left open. 8.The next date of hearing is cancelled. MANMOHAN, J JULY 4, 2022TS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J W.P.(C) No.7546/2022