Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 1270 OF 2015 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1269 OF 2015 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
CORPORATION BANK HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.88, MANGALAADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE 575001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MR. KISHORE SANAM ... PETITIONER(COMMON)
(By SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. T SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,)
AND
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) C.R. BUILDING, N.G ROAD, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE – 575 001.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, N.G. ROAD, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE 575001.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING N.G ROAD, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE 575001.
... RESPONDENTS(COMMON)
(By Sri. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DT.29.10.14, VIDE ANN-G, & 31.12.14, VIDE ANN-P PASSED BY THE R1, REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER & ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order.
Petitioner is a common assessee in both the petitions, having preferred appeals before the
3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), with an application for stay of the demand when not considered and orders passed, has resulted in these petitions for several reliefs.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied with an order of stay of the orders impugned in the appeals until final orders are passed in the appeals in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Larsen & Toubro Company Limited vs. Union of India, 2013 (288) ELT 481 (Bom.).
There being no opposition to the principles laid down in Larsen & Toubro’s case, more appropriately, over the consideration for early disposal of stay application when appeals are filed, though before the Customs, Excise, Service Tax and Appellate Tribunal, applying the very same principles to the facts of these cases, petitioner not being the cause for the appellate
4 authority for not hearing and passing orders on the interlocutory application, cannot be found fault with. In such circumstances, revenue must refrain from recovering the amounts due pursuant to impugned demand until final orders are passed in appeals and on interlocutory application for stay.
In that view of the matter, these petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the interlocutory application for stay, as expeditiously as possible and until such time, 1st respondent is restrained from precipitating recovery proceeding.
Sd/- JUDGE