Gujarat High Court
Shankarlal Nagji & Co & Others vs Income Tax Officer on 1 December, 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8252 of 1999
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8253 of 1999
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8254 of 1999
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8255 of 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANKARLAL NAGJI & CO & OTHERS
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR JP SHAH for Petitioner
MR BB NAYAK with MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1, 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA
Date of Order: 01/12/1999
ORAL ORDER
These petitions were earlier heard by a Division Bench to which one of us was a party. The matters were heard at length. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that a promise was given by the Department that no action will be taken in this regard. On behalf of the Revenue, submissions were made after making necessary enquiries. On account of change in the constitution of the Bench, learned advocate for the petitioners argued the matter afresh, and we passed an order granting interim relief as prayed for after issuing Rule returnable on 24.01.2000.
At this juncture, Mr. B.B. Nayak, learned counsel for the Revenue stated that notice has not been issued in this matter at the earlier stage, and an opportunity should be given to the Revenue to point out that stay is not required to be granted. He further stated that in the absence of Notice, it will not be possible for him to argue and he can make submissions only after filing his written submissions.
Mr. Nayak is technically right in making this submission, but it cannot be said that he was not aware that the matters are listed on todays' Board or that the matters were heard by the previous Bench when even submissions were made on behalf of the Revenue. We have heard Mr. J.P. Shah for about an hour today; Earlier the matter was heard twice.
After hearing Mr. Shah, we are of the view that these matters require consideration more particularly when he has drawn our attention to CBDT circulars and circulars on VDIS 1997. He has also invited our attention to a decision reported in 223 ITR 176. Under the circumstances, we issue Rule ruturnable on 24.1.2000 in all these matters and grant interim relief in terms of paragraph 8(c). It will be open for the Revenue to make submissions on that date for vacation of interim relief. It will be also open for the Revenue to make an application to this Court at any point of time prior thereto for vacating interim relief. Article 226 (3) has provided adequate measures.
( B.C. PATEL, J. )
csm./ ( K.M. MEHTA, J. )