Wp/47383/2014 Of M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAKALABURAGIL BENC DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF JANUARY JO15 BEFORE THE HON’'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAM#WRIT PETITION NO.47383 OF 2014 (TIT) Between: M/s. Shilpa Medicare LimitedRepresented by its Managing DirectorMr. Vishukant BhutadaAged about 52 yearsOffice at 10/80, 1[st]Fioor, Rajendra GunjRaicnur — 584 102 (by Shri M. Lava and Shri Annamalai, Advocatesfor Shri Shankar A., Advocate) ..Petitione Ana: 1)The Commissioner of Income TaxGulbargaAyakar Bnavan, Sedam RoadGulbarga —- 585 10GulbargaAyakar Bnavan, Sedam RoadGulbarga —- 585 10 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income taxCirlce-LIncome Tax OfficeOpp. Ayyappa Temple, UdayanagarRaicnur — 584 101 3.Tne Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)C.R. Buildings Annexe, NavanagarHubli - 585 025C.R. Buildings Annexe, NavanagarHubli - 585 025 (py Shri Ameet Kumar Desnpande, Advocate) ... Responde This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 2277 of thConstitution of India praying to quash the order herein markedas|Annexure-ApassedDytherespondentNO. 1andcommunicated througn tne Income tax Office (Tech.) dated22.9.2014; and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing “B’group, this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Against tne Recovery order Annexure-A dated 22[nd]September 2014 in F.No.Stay/Shnipla Medicare/CIT/GLB/2014-1passed by the first respondent, this petition is filed and thisCourt by its order dated 30[tn]September 2014 granted an interimorder staying the operation of recovery. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits thatsince there is an alternative remedy by preferring an appeal isavailable, rightly the petitioner preferred an appeal, which ispending before the authority. He submits that when an appeal ispending before the authority, preferring this writ petition wouldamount to a parallel proceedings. The fact of filing an appeal before the authority and pendency of the same has not beendisputed py the petitioner. 3. There cannot be institution of two parallel proceedingsin respect of single order of recovery. Under the circumstance,this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner toavail of alternative remedy since it is already pending before theappellate authority and further reserve liberty to the petitioner toprefer an application before the authority for granting interimorder. The interim order granted py this Court staying therecovery is also made available to the petitioner for an anotherperiod of three weeks, within wnhicn the petitioner nas to makan application before the authority for an interim order. Aftercompletion of three weeks time the interim order granted bythis Court lapses and it is for the appellate authority to passappropriate order, if any, on the application to be filed by thepetitioner. Parties to expedite the disposal of the appeal. Allcontentions are left open. Inn Sd/-JUDGE