Gujarat High Court
Dipakkumar vs Union on 20 October, 2008
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11095/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11095 of 2008
with
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11096 of 2008
=========================================================
DIPAKKUMAR
DIYALDAS TEKCHANDANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RK PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MAUNA M BHATT, for
Respondent(s) : 2 &
3
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 20/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI) Both these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short), as amended by the Finance Act, 2007, with effect from 01.06.2007, under which the applications of the petitioner before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commissioner to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act, on or before 31.03.2008.
Rule was issued on 08.09.2008 making it returnable on 17.09.2008 and ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph (32)(B) was granted till then.
The learned counsel for the respective parties have invited our attention to the interlocutory order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2008 (Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India).
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue involved in the present petitions is the same as in the aforesaid case pending before the Supreme Court and, therefore, the petitioners agree to abide by the outcome of the above petition, as and when decided by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to our notice, the order dated 16.05.2008 in Special Civil Application No.5208 of 2008 and allied matters (Comed Laboratories Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) and order dated 25.08.2008 rendered in Special Civil Application No.10353 of 2008 (Rajeev Sutaria v. Union of India and
2), whereby similar petitions have been disposed of by the Division Bench.
The order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2008 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.
As the subject matter of the present petitions is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, and the petitioners agree to abide by the outcome of the decision of those petitions by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that similar orders, as those passed by the Division Bench, should be passed, as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitions pending indefinitely. Mrs.Mauna M.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3, has no objection if the petitions are disposed of, as above.
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 which are pending before the Supreme Court. We further direct that till the Supreme Court decides the issue which is raised in the present 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 the 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.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to revive the petitions in case of necessity, upon filing a note before the Registry.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petitions are, accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent in both these petitions. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(D.A.Mehta, J.) (Smt.Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top