Wp/6557/2016 Of M/S.visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemptions)

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHYWrit Petition No.6557 of 2016 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard both Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner, and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel forIncome Tax, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at thestage of admission. The notice, under Section 226(3) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 22.02.2016 calling upon the 3[rd]respondent to make payment, due from them to the petitioner ofRs.47,67,86,033/-, is under challenge in this writ petition. While ordering notice before admission on 29.02.2016, this Courtdirected the petitioner to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.48 crores intheir bank account for a period of one week, the 3[rd] respondent-Bank toensure that withdrawals by the petitioner would not result in the minimumbalance in their account being reduced below Rs.48 crores, and the otherrespondents not to enforce the garnishee notice for one week. Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner, would submit that the appeals, preferred against the orders ofassessment passed by the 1[st] respondent, are pending before the 2[nd]respondent; the applications filed by the petitioner before the 1[st]respondent, under Section 220(6) of the Act, are yet to be considered;and, in view of the CBDT Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016, the 1[st]respondent cannot resort to coercive measures, for recovery of the taxdue under the assessment orders, till the stay petitions filed by thepetitioner are disposed of. Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax,while fairly stating that the stay applications filed by the petitioner, underSection 220(6) of the Act, are still pending before the 1[st] respondent,would request that the interim order passed earlier on 29.02.2016 becontinued till the stay applications are disposed of by the 1[st] respondent. Notwithstanding the submission of Sri S.Ravi, learned SeniorCounsel, that continuance of the earlier interim order would be notjustified, and as we propose to direct the 1[st] respondent to dispose of thestay applications at the earliest, the interests of both the parties would besecured if the earlier interim order were to continue till then. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent todispose of the stay applications pending before him, after giving thepetitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing, within three weeks fromtoday. While the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent shall both ensure thata minimum balance of Rs.48 crores remains in the petitioner’s bankaccount with the 3[rd] respondent, the impugned garnishee notices, issuedeven before the stay applications under Section 220(6) of the Act couldbe disposed of, are set aside. It is made clear that this order shall notpreclude the 1[st] respondent from deciding the stay applications and,thereafter, taking action, if need be, in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also standdisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J ___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 04.03.2016Note: Issue C.C. by 08.03.2016JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY JSU Writ Petition No.6557 of 2016 Date: 04.03.2016