Wp/11883/2014 Of M/S The Himalaya Drug Company Makali v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14[‘T]DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BRHRORE THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL BETWERE W.P.Nos.11889,11888/2014 (T,IT) M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANYMAKALT,TUMKUR ROAD,BANGALORE -562 123(REP BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,MS JAYASHREE ULLALL, AGED ABOUT 39 YBARSD/O SHRI DAYANANDA ULLAL.... PETITIONBR (By Sri.CHYTHANYA K K, ADV.) AND THE DEBEPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMB TACENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING,|QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE -560 OO1.... RESPONDENT. (By Sri. K V ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE|RESPONDENT NOT LTO TAKE ANY COBRCIVE STEPS TOWARDS THERECOVERY OF DEMANDS REAISED UNTIL THE DISPOSAL OF THEAPPBALS PENDING BBFORE THR HON'BLE INCOMB TAX APPBLLIETRIBUNAL FOR THE YEARS 2OO3-04 TO 2JOO8-O9 @& FOR A PERIOOF 120 DAYS THEREAFTER AND BIC.| THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRBLIMINARY HBARINGTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1.Petitioner has challenged the orders of assessment for theyears 2003-04 to 2008-09 passed by the Assessing Officer|before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short,‘tthe Tribunal). 2 |The Tribunal initially granted an interim order on.13.03.2013 in 38S.P.Nos.217-222/2012 for a period of simonths. As the appeals could not be disposed of within aperiod of six months, petitioner herein sought for extension ofthe interim order. By order dated 10.09.2013, Tribunalextended the interim order for a further period of six months.Even during the extended period also, the appeals could not bedisposed of. As the Tribunal does not have the power to extendthe interim order any further, petitioner has approached thisCourt. 3.]I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned counsel representing the respondent. The petitionaverments and the materials on record clearly disclose thatpetitioner is not at fault in diligently prosecuting the case before the Tribunal. Indeed, the matter is adjourned either at the)instance of the respondent or on account of certain other|contingencies. In such circumstances, if the benefit of the)interim order is denied to the petitioner, petitioner will be!subjected to serious prejudice and hardship. Hence, in the)ends of justice, interim order is extended by a period of threemonths from today with a direction to the Tribunal to expedite|the disposal of the appeal in the meanwhile. Writ Petitions areaccordingly disposed of.| At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for therespondent that the matter is at the stage of final hearing and itis indeed heard in part. It is hoped that the Tribunal will|dispose of the matter well before the expiry of the interim orderextended by this Court. PKS Sd/-.JUDGE|