Gujarat High Court
Soham Securities Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of on 16 April, 2013
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
SOHAM SECURITIES LIMITED....Petitioner(s)V/SASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXOR HIS SUCEESSOR TOOFFIC C/SCA/16617/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16617 of 2012 =========================================================== SOHAM SECURITIES LIMITED....Petitioner(s) Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXOR HIS SUCEESSOR TOOFFIC & 5....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 5 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 6 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 16/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Rule.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we notice that the impugned order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner No.910020050265257 of the Axis Bank, Opposite GEB, Near Pizza Hut, Race Course Circle, Vadodara was passed on 26.7.2012. In terms of sub section (2) of section 281B, such order would have a life of six months from the date of the order so far made under sub section (1) of Section 281B.
It is of course true that proviso to sub section (2) of section 281B empowers the authority prescribed therein for reasons to be recorded in writing to extend the said period by such further period not exceeding two years. In the present case, learned counsel Mr. Parikh, under the instructions of respondent No.6, stated that no further extension has been made. Under the circumstances, the situation that would emerge is that such provisional order of attachment would lapse by afflux of time by the end of January 2013. Since no further extension has been made in such order, at present, we would not inquire into the legality of such an order. It would be sufficient to clarify that such order having lapsed with afflux of time, the petitioner would be free to operate the said bank account.
Serious allegations of personal mala fides have been made by the petitioner in the petition and in further affidavits against the respondent No.6 so far he was in charge of the scrutiny assessment of the petitioner company for the Assessment year 2011-12. We had therefore, desired to place such assessment at the disposal of some other Assessing Officer, of course without accepting any of the allegations of the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Parikh for the Revenue stated that the address of the petitioner company has now shifted to Ahmedabad. Under such circumstances, the assessment itself would be transferred. In any case, the same may be placed before any officer other than respondent No.6.
Under the circumstances, by way of interim direction, the respondent No.4 shall consider the request of the petitioner for transferring the assessment from Vadodara to Ahmedabad as made under communication dated 27.11.2012, copy of which is produced at page No.196 to the petition. In any case, such assessment be placed at the hands of any officer other than respondent No.6. Subject to above directions, stay against further assessment proceedings is lifted.
Direct service is permitted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) shekhar Page 3 of 3