Parle International Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ahmedabad Iii
High Court
12 Mar 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Parle International Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ahmedabad Iii
Date of order
12 Mar 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Parle International Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ahmedabad Iii, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3118 of 2004
For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?
--------------------------------------------------------------
PARLE INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD III
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 3118 of 2004
MR JP SHAH for Petitioner No. 1
.......... for Respondent No. 1-2
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
Date of decision: 12/03/2004
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�RULE. Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned Standing
Counsel waives service of Rule on an advance copy of the petition having been served.
�In the facts and circumstance of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.
2.�What is challenged in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is the coercive recovery being
made by the respondent-authorities including attachment
of the petitioner's bank accounts for non-payment of its
income-tax dues. The petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad along with Stay Application No.9/Ahd/2004 for
appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad along with Stay Application No.9/Ahd/2004 for stay of recovery, pending hearing of the appeal.
3.�Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain such
petitions. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the following peculiar facts and circumstances of the case for seeking intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution :-
(i) When the petitioner's stay application was fixed
for hearing before the Tribunal on 5.3.2004,
unfortunately wife of one of the Members of the
Tribunal passed away and, therefore, stay matter
was adjourned. The Tribunal hears the stay
applications on the first and last Friday of the
month and, therefore, the stay application is now
going to be heard on 26.3.2004;
(ii) The petitioner has already paid 33% of the tax
demand or 24% of the tax-cum-interest demand;
(iii) The petitioner had disposed of an undertaking
which fetched a sizeable amount of Rs.29.34
crores and the petitioner invested the same under
Section 54EA of the Act. The said amount is
still lying in the mutual fund with which the
amount was invested and is earning regular
income. The petitioner undertakes not to
withdraw Rs.4 crores out of the said amount till
the Tribunal hears and decides the stay
application.
4.�In view of the aforesaid extraordinary
circumstances, it appears to the Court that the
respondent-authorities are required to be restrained from
making any coercive recovery of the petitioner's tax dues
which are the subject matter of the appeal before the
Tribunal till the Tribunal hears and decides Stay
Application No.9/Ahd/2004. Consequently, the
respondent-authorities shall also release the bank
�This shall be done upon an undertaking being
filed by the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company
amount was invested and is earning regular
income. The petitioner undertakes not to
withdraw Rs.4 crores out of the said amount till
the Tribunal hears and decides the stay
application.
4.�In view of the aforesaid extraordinary
circumstances, it appears to the Court that the
respondent-authorities are required to be restrained from
making any coercive recovery of the petitioner's tax dues
which are the subject matter of the appeal before the
Tribunal till the Tribunal hears and decides Stay
Application No.9/Ahd/2004. Consequently, the
respondent-authorities shall also release the bank
�This shall be done upon an undertaking being
filed by the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company
that the petitioner-Company shall not withdraw an amount
of Rs.4 crores from the aforesaid investment under
Section 54EA of the Act.
�In view of the statement coming from the learned counsel for the petitioner that the undertaking will be filed by 15.3.2004, the bank accounts of the petitioner
shall be released from attachment with effect from
today.
�It is expected that the Tribunal will hear the
stay application on 26.3.2004 and shall decide it by
31.3.2004.
�It is clarified that this Court has not at all
gone into the merits of the stay application and this order is passed only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
5.�The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms
of the aforesaid directions.
�Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
�Direct service is permitted today.
�����(M.S. SHAH, J.)
�����(A.M.KAPADIA, J.)
zgs/-
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.