MRS. SADIA SHEIKH THROUGH HER POA MR. SADIQ SHEIKH vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 4 ORS.,

WP/149/2013HC BombayHCBM05000609201304 March 2013Bench: V. M. KANADE,U. V. BAKRE3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would be appropriate to set aside the order of attachment. The Court reasoned that the attachment was made due to a lack of communication of the stay order. Consequently, the order of attachment was set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). Regarding prayer clause (B), which sought action against the respondents, the Court noted the unconditional apology tendered by the Revenue's counsel and found no case made out for taking action. An interim order was directed to continue for two weeks after the decision of the CIT(Appeals), if any adverse decision was taken. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Mr. Sadiq Sheikh and Mrs. Sadia Sheikh, filed two writ petitions (WP Nos. 148 and 149 of 2013) before the Bombay High Court at Goa. Their grievance was that the respondents (Income Tax authorities) had attached their properties, which they contended was in direct violation of a stay order previously granted by the High Court on February 26, 2013, in related writ petitions (WP Nos. 128 and 129 of 2013). The Revenue's counsel submitted that the stay order could not be communicated to the concerned officers, leading to the erroneous attachment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the attachment of the petitioners' properties by the Revenue authorities constituted a violation of the High Court's stay order dated February 26, 2013, granted in Writ Petitions No. 128 and 129 of 2013? (Question of fact and law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the attachment of their properties was a direct violation of the High Court's stay order. They sought to have the attachment set aside and action taken against the respondents. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel submitted that the stay order could not be communicated to the officers responsible for the attachment, and therefore, the attachment was passed due to a lack of communication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS.148 AND 149 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION NO.148 OF 2013. Mr. Sadiq Sheikh, Aged about 55 years, Indian National, residing at Odxel Villa, Plot No.1, H.No.22/412, Near Don Bosco, Odxel, Talegao, Goa. .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Pundalik Niwas, Rua-de Qurem, Panaji Goa 2. The Tax Recovery Officer, Central Range 1,4th floor, Central Avenue Building Annexe, Queens Road, Banglore-560 001 3. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Range-VI, Income Tax Office, Bangalore. 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Bangalore. 5. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. .. Respondents.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2013 Mrs. Sadia Sheikh, Aged about 56 years, Indian National, residing at Odxel Villa, Plot No.1, H.No.22/412, Near Don Bosco, Odxel, Talegao, Goa, through her duly constituted POA, Mr. Sadiq Sheikh, Major of age, residing at Odxel, Taleigao, Goa. .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Pundalik Niwas, Rua-de Qurem, Panaji Goa 2. The Tax Recovery Officer, Central Range 1,4th floor, Central Avenue Building

2 Annexe, Queens Road, Banglore-560 001 3. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Range-VI, Income Tax Office, Bangalore. 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Bangalore. 5. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. .. Respondents. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj P. Pai Vernekar, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions. Ms. A. Dessai, Advocate for the respondents in both the petitions.

Coram

:- V. M. KANADE & U. V. BAKRE,JJ. Date : - 4 th March, 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per V. M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that this Court was pleased to grant stay to the abrupt demand of the respondents by order dated 26/02/2013 in Writ Petitions No.128 and 129 of 2013. The respondents have proceeded to attach the properties of the petitioners which is in direct violation of the orders passed by this Court. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that unfortunately stay order could not be communicated and because of lack of communication, the said order of attachment was passed. 5. In our view, it would be appropriate, therefore, if the said order of attachment is set aside. Hence, the order of attachment is set aside. Writ Petitions accordingly are allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). 6. In view of unconditional apology tendered by learned

3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, no case is made out for taking action against the respondents in terms of prayer clause (B). 7. Interim order shall continue for a period of two weeks after the decision of CIT(Appeals), if any adverse decision is taken. 8. With these directions, Writ Petitions stand disposed of. V. M. KANADE, J. U. V. BAKRE, J. SMA

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →