SHRI MAHILA GRIH UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD 440 LIJJAT BHAWAN WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

W.P. No.22175/2017 (Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Ors.) Jabalpur, Dated : 19.12.2017 Shri Sumit Nema, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vijyant Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents, on advance notice. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 28.11.2017 by which the application for stay of demand for the Assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 has been rejected. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition has already been decided in favour of the petitioner by the Appellate Tribunal in one case and that the issue as to whether the petitioner is a separate entity or a branch has also been considered and decided by this Court in S.A. No.137/2010. It is further informed that in respect of the very same issue, W.P. No.12539/2009 is pending before this Court in which an interim order has been passed by this Court on 25.11.2009. It is submitted that inspite of all the aforesaid facts, the Income Tax Officer has rejected the application filed by the petitioner, without taking into consideration any of the aforesaid issues though they were specifically pointed out and stated by the petitioner in the application for stay. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the impugned order be set aside. However, when confronted with the fact that an appeal against the order of assessment for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 has been filed by the petitioner and is pending adjudication and that the petitioner has the remedy of filing an application for stay before the Appellate Authority, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an application for stay. He, however, submits that looking to the past history of the case, the pendency of litigation before this Court and the order of the Tribunal deciding the issue raised by the petitioner in favour of the petitioner in respect of the previous assessment years, the authorities be restrained from taking any coercive steps till the petitioner obtains an order from the Appellate Authority. Though the aforesaid prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who appears on advance notice, it is ordered that while the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an application for stay, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent authorities towards recovery from the petitioner for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 till the time the petitioner obtains an order in this regard from the Appellate Authority subject to the fact that the petitioner files such an application for stay before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from today. The petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Certified copy as per rules. (R. S. Jha)

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) J U D G E J U D G E pp. Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2017.12.20 10:48:12 +05'30'