Gujarat High Court
Rambhai vs Union on 7 October, 2010
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8893/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8893 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8894 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2756 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2587 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5418 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12155 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12156 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12157 of 2009
=================================================
RAMBHAI
M CHOUDHARY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR. SN SOPARKAR,
SR.ADV. WITH MRS. SWATI SOPARKAR, MR
RK PATEL, MR BD KARIA, MS. PAULOMI SHETH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
MM BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MRS. MAUNA BHATT for
Respondents
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 07/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) In all these writ petitions as constitutional validity of provisions of Sec.245HA(1)(iv) and 245HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are under challenge, and in similar matters certain orders have already been passed by this Court, they are heard together and disposed of in terms with the order passed in similar cases. In fact, a similar case, Special Civil Application No. 5208 of 2008 Comed Laboratories Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others and analogous cases came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court on 16.05.2008. In those cases also, constitutional validity of the above provisions was under
challenge. In those cases, after considering the facts, the Division Bench passed interim orders to the effect that the Settlement Commission shall not consider the settlement applications filed by the petitioners as having abated under Section 245HA of the Act for want of compliance with Section 245D(4A) of the Finance Act, 2007. The Court also granted ad-interim relief restraining the Assessing Officer from taking up the applications of those applicants pending before the Settlement Commission before 31.03.2008. On hearing the parties, the following order was passed:-
"3. Our attention is invited to the interlocutory order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2008 (Prabhu Dayal Vs. Union of India), which reads as under :-
Issue notice.
There shall be an interim stay of the provision for abatement of the proceedings relating to the petitioner pending before the second respondent.
The pendency of this writ petition will not come in the way of the Income Tax Settlement Commission in disposing of the matter before it in accordance with law.
4. The learned advocates for the petitioners state that the issue involved in the present petitions is the same as in the aforesaid case pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that, therefore, the petitioners agree to abide by the outcome of the above petition and in any other connected matters on the same issue, which may be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned advocates for the petitioners further state that the petitioners would be interested in intervening before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Since the subject matter of the present petition is also very much before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioners agree to abide by the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition/s involving the same subject matter, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping these petitions pending.
6. We, therefore, dispose of these petitions with a direction that the petitioners as well as the respondents shall abide by the outcome of Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2008 and connected matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. We further direct that till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the issue which is raised in the present group of petitions, the assessing authorities and the appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not take up the matters which are to be treated as pending before the Settlement Commission and disposal of these petitions on the above ground shall not come in the way of the Settlement Commission in disposing of the matters before it in accordance with law."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court and also accepts that the parties will be governed by the decision as may be rendered by the Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal (supra). In view of the aforesaid position, we also dispose of these writ petitions with same and similar directions as given by this Court in Comet Laboratories Limited (supra) and quoted above. No costs.
(S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.) (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) [sn devu] pps Top