Karnataka High Court
M/S Rns Infrastructure Ltd., vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 22 March, 2011
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD _ : ¥ ORDER
= we Sus ane Sond "epee -- oo es -
a Ce pout -
rm .
ot tee pon Call eal See Sd 2 a fant vd i bon wna aa 'amet ns! jad is ee fad ey eo spel Bear vee i wer "
oo ay
--
i ~ Ine on -
4G = fo ~ 43 fa 'set pol one pe a oy frond bene Shut es © £ ns Fmd eat jos
--
pout nt os See oo. °
a) 7 fs qe PPOA ir es An jot faa oe Tic?
SSP CLS poe y Seon der LIP] i sions SPOM 'ee $ pend e intel entiy invtiated RED Py + et COM cd faa peste retore Te a
-sommnutnication dated 18-10 : Deouty Comimissioner of Income Tax, Circle Si1j, Hubh be to grant an absolute stay of the demand pursuant to the 'der as per the representation. ASSESSMC! 32.1.2011 [Annexure-C) and reliving on the orders passed by this court in simdar circurmstances:
learned single judges of this court via'. order 2007 passed in WP No 7602 of POO7 and-order-aatcd [3 2003 in WP No 35973+95 of 2003). anc even before the central board of direct. t:
clarifications im.the wake sof the reach claimec by tne petitioner ar be avenléd of by arn asse ioner that ai is not possible ta ¢ af the demana, 7 i.
pes rOPri a SPLETH 3 Se BE Sputer 6 PDFS GEeSessrerni 3 fCOrTLe HTL PET 3 Aebhoriy , ay mr "
"nee a Newt wha "sae! * a os ~~ oo
-- ce aG = ia a Swe -
= ie me sven! ricinn ad Ft et eee eet Pa ~--
~ a aa ad A ws bo ta ca ee wen a oe a tiene oe . fe " c ans ou qu oy fed ~ pnt aad ews ae ae ia a a boo 2 : lidbowe : om rs " we : ' ae at aad da inci. ~~ : WF " on bo oad he i che oe - oe oa tee he Gn! ae a "4 o 7 * uel ~~ ett " an on of --
nok opin an ie 7 14 feet respon : saat on, t vo ? Cam JEG how = er wad fon Noa eel ~_, a te eat "p S petitioner, process Ppecensary COCR par ia ot wien q ple Pio iS Pere 5 ' as ected, appeal before the commissioner of income tax .] 'der has been granted. petitioner iS SeeKn toutehacictaimed under income of © 14,17 ,79,320/ % provision being lo tne t 9, if appears..the i execuling the housing i someone other than the-assessee and ever mas Quite naturally of this mature blocks parte ini reverlue to the state, upset orders revere «ill functioning of the Government, » the department ¢ the petitioner be has ehcned a pe HUBLI-S80025, Sir, Sub: Stay p Fp PYG E OTF. PoEPaS recrred bo firn conunuricate the remarks of the Comp Pax. Hib @s wuneer: *~ KULKARNI) Lorne of fer ty LIVE i "OVPTLIT zt if wvess iH £ ey te meeecas ee es aP THSre} OT ;
=, pete Mid + pi s fowl Sad eet ene al ' ry Ben, ore pot pet Newt Sater eM ol Bend oad oh uae a et Pa ae) pany oo os eon Sun! 0 i pot j "E E Pi Nae = S os oh Ef on he ay P ai co Fn os Coad ---- bed iw pot Bowne LOE miiruct pot yen fy ego ~ saat a a ad = a _ + Nie vo os : pot ene an cae ay at rl é a ce ' BE ca = poe We ope: Se :
mn Ah. Snel 'ae! oes + £ al ae : cs . ee ue ey Save! os ie fe ae gave Pe Prers os 4 i " fan ra je " .
4 "a! a aes ae ow = se! wk a on = od aH ses oot wae
- 3 Ded int me) wpe a Sa Sa! hat :
, co jee an wi wn Steers ao -~ oy yh " a Soda a .
_ od a _ ey oes + al od ee pen rope bent a sf fa
-- : t o } Ls i " a em hd ~ vee oe oe, int St ea Be vad it =~ e a) see ay : eo A a i} we tf Lak co a. sal het nae --_ oot nm o ye inna oe . het aA ved ne wit oe aa = : fant a * nt pe 2 m a unt sad -- ese an : a eo . ip ne bot penn oe . he ; "ne en : oot a a . L es on atk wie Ane oo , p bye fan a ewe ae ce ewe ~ ce Jan ~ Lae _ a pa "ea + yeu Pa wet aa ae ue : en jew 'net a nm » ~ = te oe a ca bee ent £ : : oul Net 4% aad boom ao 4 hee ' pan 5 eit ; "s i . fad MI an) de ap = famed id pares Hi wee "at 4 mt ea?
so * a we a 4 Z na i : fon qs ad i yen au : ay io my o bal + newt ve Saw Ned! Sees Suet 1 por 7 wen ge: pee em oud pos pede int oy 4, . -- ° + tai "font * ap . sino a Fiat . foe! an caer ont we AY seen ' ever) f my ian ~ Qo nn ay a ee OME Sheet ye Nhe! oe ae Z % = c Gok = faa et AN] om a Peg . pow * a a -- f ° , mn -- 'a? Ne ~ pos 'poo a fey oe es a pan eo hod ae oe vee wn > poms ot eth ee we y po
- of ae aod at ~_ ae we oI wa " Sew? rt shoal sa a = omen a ia shod Ae we ny " 4 gg oe co Me se raat ~ fs oo of Mal y ow re :
: a ba a me ~~ an: _ = fei 'ona Ae -- Sat oa Sonot fees pend ae gud g a3 ie! ri 2 at " * £4 ney rh tne Si co je = 'at oe uf '3 Paid eo wy om t ~~ : . pen a3 +n Soa! ani : St ; Ne sen, fee > gunwe 4 gee om 5 £ SS . a ' ret ome res jd om) Sent 43 a3 -- a) al ce > pee ee pea hose ue 4 ee ~ mr Sent coe © wed we v1 ot, * Maks 7 io a os, i fon fest bao! ot Nie! Vlad an 4, od ue we "
~ eet oy en : a eo : a _ won Dn cae > pen a Nae! fot La ie ino = a5 "bod a rand "nt ae 4 shat Ppred et * wa cad ieee wine a QQ van an . '3 "ier wet my a a # , = a - a < we nt & a "ow! e f i Stat At ym ci wees ont om tet mo as Sha! 'rn + oat spond a Fendi Good waa met roe a earned standing Saal respondents, eGuntiers this argument and on thal even tre order dated & wher the commissioner had permitted the 40%) of the ouistandime amount i ctwe Tyst of which should have ich paving r petitioner having become-de maliher vel "ogain, i becerne inevitable for the comirissiener.to resort to recovery fo saleguard the imierest ofthe Pevemue and the action was hullvy warranted ance}: fied and the petitioner deliberately sent fm pas on 'ee an piel rors os i opt os
-
St py Set Pi ee os, suppressing. these developments interim order wd be peta erd gee eg ~ em boy HOPLIPESIC UIT? GL, oS ar unwritten _
-
rEVISIOTIS OF ®ve sue independently seek enforcement of the demand amount. afte become 4 defaulter is & rare and rmoreinterference. and pubhe administration and the law flarea by the Supreme Court in the case of ASST COLLECTOR C E, CHANDAR NAGAR vs DUNLOP f i INDIA LTD [AIR 1985 SC-320], as under: Lip Lee 00) yfailing in our di te COrErTS, late, appear GML MrLedrranted beri LEO PUR), CoP Gee pe are Wade 11g hy while erltertaining teri Of fhe (Cons 16 "EC TOUENT LIPO PLES move applcations se oy pee : bay paey ep oh em wiere tf MeCorles such appuc LIONS | in Umitore of (SUDTal, hd, "After: hearing» rival partie ig, Cour pot wucurreary te re spoirde on substantial the re Hepa 'by them in th petition, Accordingly, we Sef aside have come ma see? faPiel Authorities . PAPEL CEPLCeS Is grid unrest , fOGLMiNG 7 rade GLTOSS e (Pee tia CaS SOS vonven COR sroditie § heave been the Shoe KS See SEUZULE, We PLUG COME GCFOSS Lo reform are importer been stayed by cor Ware. logislitic aleulab Eo hep peen done by . I bertn order iiferin orders s:! ests of Cases Lr 19 credit r Orders preverll no better Pret fe are no heard ance odd seretion anc circ: There are Se.
20 Hetien of this court.
passing the assessment orc: the dermand through recovery -proceedings, "are, all acting within their jurisdiction. » the law as-declared by the Supreme of, DUNLOP INDIA LTD [supra Sawrit jurisdiction for interference in delineating the scx tax matters.and [or mofinterim orders, writ petitions of nnet be entertamed for grant of
-orders in favour of assessee to enable it to AVOK amc) wore So im the present case commissioner of ae eB, 9 ation is cot 22, (if SO far as the present writ pe cermed and learned counsel for the pe even the submission of rs ne CE les toed pyeerdene pied esterpedenes perlvey ae vege whe Loong and the grant of interim order and placing renance on "ine Whig any ratio in therm, bul being cle declared by the Supreme INDIA LTD [supra] and bene perincuramn the judgment of the Supreme Court and tne! therem) and Mn , and circumstance of the case, | of the Clear w "the interim order is to be forthwith and the writ pertion itself should be dismissed.
niine facts betore this Court. S opears that th ait :
--
SLEDITHSSIO sy ambivava 8 | we ao i wt w oy io fon a sneered 24 process fee of 8 5/- and was requested fo Srinivas also states that as the advocate.hiad already, wd been intimated about this and due 1
26. Sri Kambivavar, learned (ReaD DPoCeESS lee weighing aed hans this could have been a plausibic explanalion, notice and Wen if the postal stamp & "petition papers has not re 25 been for riore than paid when the minimum is f 150/- for issue of emergent) ly AS timecent as is:
to oOOfaim an this fuee ' Te ee a ran bon 1 H PGET@, (ALLMGLIL ratice to tne respondents, and WH. a positive direction to the use atfacmment, the interim order is, as othe Supreme Court, eran chet rored (ne responders at ail 26 respondents is complain: OSS misuse and LLIS WWEIE FLEPESCHICTION oF persons witjout bone fides and for depriving the staré.obars legitimate dues. In view of thes F OIPCLINTSTan ce iam of the view Lnat the cosmo <1) 00,000 %..9mipased on the petitioner is too inadequate. and enhanced and the costis enhanced.to &< PVE Goh) OP iyo. 7
-pelbioner in responcent oo Costs Sie weeks trom HWS Standing first responc et 30, The Additional Registrar Ger fO iSSue memos to the We of the registry in resort to overreach the part of the petitioner. Orcdeéred accordingly: