Wp/3606/2019 Of Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai And 2 Ors

Priya Soparkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3606 OF 2019 Vodafone Idea Limited … PetitionerV/s.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.… Respondents --- Mr.P.J.Pardiwala, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.A.K.Jasani forthe Petitioner. Mr.Sham Walve with Mr.Pritesh Chatterjee, Advocate forRespondent Nos.1 to 3. --- CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2020 P.C.:- 1.Heard Mr.P.J.Paridwala, learned senior counselinstructed by Mr.A.K.Jasani, learned counsel for thepetitioner; and Mr.Sham Walve, learned standing counsel,revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2.By filing this petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, petitioner has sought for thefollowing reliefs:- Priya Soparkar “(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased toissue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ,order or direction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India called for the records ofthe case so far as they relate to the impugnedOrder dated September 27, 2019 (Exhibit ‘K’)and order dated December 19, 2019 passed byITAT in MA No.589/M/2019 Exhibit ‘P’ and aftergoing through the same and examining thequestion of legality thereof modify the sameby revoking the conditions of furnishing thebank guarantee imposed on the Petitionerearlier; (b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in thenature of Mandamus, or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, ordering and directingthe Respondent to revoke the conditions offurnishing the bank guarantee imposed on thePetitioner earlier; (c) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in thenature of Prohibition or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India prohibitingRespondent from taking any further actionwhatsoever in pursuance of the expiry of thebank guarantee.” 3.It is seen that for the assessment year 2007-08, petitioner has preferred appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “D”, Mumbai (Tribunal )which has been registered as ITA No.1173/CHD/2011. Priya Soparkar 3912 wp 3606-19-o 4.In the said appeal petitioner had filed an applicationfor staying the demand of Rs.93,03,55,486.00. The saidapplication was registered as SA No.23/Chd/2011. It maybe mentioned that as per the assessment order totalincome of the petitioner was assessed atRs.7,43,66,88,318.00 and the tax demand wasRs.3,45,43,83,033.00. It appears that petitioner had paidan amount of Rs.2,17,08,29,467.00 excluding interestamount which amounts to 70% of the total tax amount.By order dated 14[th] December, 2011 Tribunal stayedrecovery of the balance amount. However, at asubsequent stage, Tribunal insisted that petitioner shouldprovide bank guarantee to cover the remaining 30% ofthe tax amount. This was in order dated 23[rd] November,2012 passed in SA No.334/M/2012. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that forvarious reasons the banks of the petitioner are nowinsisting on full deposit of the aforesaid amount in orderto provide bank guarantee. This has created a piquant Priya Soparkar 4912 wp 3606-19-o situation for the petitioner as it is going through adifficult financial phase at the moment. 6.Learned standing counsel Revenue submits thatappeal of the petitioner is of the year 2011 and infactwas fixed for hearing on several occasions. As a matterof fact it was heard but for one reason or the otherhearing could not be concluded. 7.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and ondue consideration, we are of the view that it would be inthe interest of justice if the appeal itself is heard by theTribunal expeditiously and till such time recovery of thebalance tax amount should be stayed. Priya Soparkar 4912 wp 3606-19-o situation for the petitioner as it is going through adifficult financial phase at the moment. 6.Learned standing counsel Revenue submits thatappeal of the petitioner is of the year 2011 and infactwas fixed for hearing on several occasions. As a matterof fact it was heard but for one reason or the otherhearing could not be concluded. 7.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and ondue consideration, we are of the view that it would be inthe interest of justice if the appeal itself is heard by theTribunal expeditiously and till such time recovery of thebalance tax amount should be stayed. 8.Accordingly, Tribunal is directed to hear and decide Income Tax Appeal No.1173/CHD/2011 for theassessment year 2007-08 within a period of fourmonths from today. Till the hearing of the appeal asabove, the demand in question shall be kept in abeyancewithout any requirement of furnishing bank account. 9.Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) ….