An Application Under Article 226 Of The vs Bengal Shristi Infrastructure ... on 4 April, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

An Application Under Article 226 Of The vs Bengal Shristi Infrastructure ... on 4 April, 2013

Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                                CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                                         APPELLATE SIDE
                                   W. P. No. 8394 (W) of 2013
                   In the matter of : An application under Article 226 of the
                                      Constitution of India.
                       - and -
                   In the matter of :Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Dev.Ltd.& Anr.
                                                                   ... Petitioner.
                                                      -Vs-
                                        Asstt. Comm. of I. Tax & Ors.
                                                                  ... Respondents.

For the petitioners : Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Mr. Shounak Mitra, Mr. Asim Choudhury For the respondents : Mr. Md. Nizamuddin (07) 04.04.2013 ah Heard Mr. Khaitan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nizamuddin, the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5.

After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and after going through the writ petition as well as the supplementary affidavit, I am of the view that the dispute raised in this writ petition should be decided on affidavit.

Accordingly, let an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition as well as the supplementary affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks from today. Let an affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, be filed within a period of one week thereafter.

Let this matter appear under the heading "For Hearing" in the Supplementary List after three weeks before the appropriate Bench.

This writ petition is against several orders passed for provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act attaching the bank account of the petitioner. From the supplementary affidavit it appears that the petitioner has offered to provide an alternative security in the form of an immovable property for the demand of the relevant assessment year. The document relied on by the petitioner has been annexed to the said supplementary affidavit as annexure-"P/1". Mr. Nizamuddin, the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 has taken an exception to the nature of the document that it has not conferred any title upon the petitioner. He, on instruction, submits that the concerned authorities are not willing to accept it as an adequate alternative security in the form of this immovable property.

In such view of it, the alternative security offered by the petitioner is not accepted. There shall be no interim order at this stage.

However, this will not prevent the petitioner from making the prayer at the relevant point of time. The respondents are directed to produce the records on the date of hearing.

(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.) 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)