Bombay High Court
Ajmera Housing Corporation And Anr vs The Income Tax Settlement Commission ... on 11 January, 2021
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Milind N. Jadhav
Digitally
Minal signed by
Minal V. Parab
V. Date:
2021.01.13
Parab 11:03:36
+0530
11_IAL_4640_20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.4640 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2012
Ajmera Housing Corporation Bombay ... Applicant
In the matter between
Ajmera Housing Corporation Bombay and another ... Petitioners
Vs.
Income Tax Settlement Commission and others ... Respondents
Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Vasanti Patel for Applicant.
Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w. Ms. Mohinee Cougule for Respondents.
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 11, 2021
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Mistri, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel Revenue for the respondents.
2. This interim application has been filed by the writ petitioner as the applicant for fixing a date of hearing and in the interregnum for a direction to the respondents not to take further steps for recovery of the amounts in terms of the impugned order of the Settlement Commission.
3. We find that this Court by order dated 18.11.2014 had admitted the related writ petition for hearing by a detailed order with the observation that hearing be expedited. In fact date of hearing was fixed on 14.01.2015. However, for some reason or the other, the hearing could not take place as scheduled.
4. Mr. Mistry, learned senior counsel submits that all this while no 1/2 11_IAL_4640_20.doc coercive steps were taken by the respondents though petitioners have been making payment to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs per month to the respondents. Now there is an apprehension that respondents may resort to coercive steps and hence the interim application has been filed. In fact such apprehension has been fortified in the affidavit filed by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that since there is no stay order by the High Court to the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission and payment of Rs.30 lakhs per month while pertaining to separate set of outstanding demands is also a minuscule amount compared to the overall tax dues, there is no restraint on the respondents to take steps for recovery.
5. Mr. Suresh Kumar has referred to the averments made in the reply affidavit of the respondents and submits that since there is no stay to the impugned order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, applicant is duty bound to comply with the said demand.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the materials on record.
7. Having regard to the earlier order passed by this Court on 18.11.2014, we direct that hearing of the related bunch of writ petitions be taken up on 01.03.2021. Till then, the present arrangement shall continue.
8. With the above direction, interim application is disposed of.
9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)
Minal Parab
2/2