MANOJ KUMAR JAIN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No.71527 OF 2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN: Sri Manoj Kumar Jain, Prop: M/s Mahaveer Electronics & M/s Gururajendra Minerals Trading Co. Satyanarayana Nilaya, 100 Bed Hospital Road, Hospet-583 201. ... Petitioner (By Sri Raghuraman & Chythanya K.K.; Sri Shashank Hegde, Advs.) AND: 1. The Assistant Commissioiner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Saraf Colony, Shraddha Building, Khanapur Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum-590 003. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Saraf Colony, Shraddha Building, Khanapur Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum-590 003.

2 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore. Respondents (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ the impugned notice dated 12.09.2012 issued by the first respondent to the Chief Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd. Mumbai, enclosed in Annexure- A, etc. This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: O R D E R The petitioner’s grievance is that the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is not being disposed of. 2. Sri Shashank Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the oral arguments are addressed long ago; written arguments are also submitted. As the petitioner’s bank accounts are frozen, it has not been possible for the petitioner to keep paying Rs.10 lakhs a month, a condition laid by the respondent No.3.

3 3. Sri Y.V.Raviraj, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the petitioner’s income tax dues are in the region of Rs.113 crores. The Commissioner of Income Tax granted the extension of installments subject to the petitioner paying Rs.10 lakhs every month, till the disposal of the appeal by the C.I.T.(A). The petitioner has committed default even in the payment of monthly installments of Rs.10 lakhs. 4. Sri Shashank Hegde, in the course of rejoinder, submits that the representations, dated 08.12.2011 and 31.01.2012 (Annexures-J and K) for keeping the collection of the dues in abeyance have not evoked any response. 5. On hearing the learned advocates, I dispose of this petition with a direction to the C.I.T.(A) to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal Nos.425 to 430/CIT(A)-VI/B’lore/09-10 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today’s order.

4 6. Further, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s representations, dated 08.12.2011 and 31.01.2012 (Annexures-J and K) in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE mkc