TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 19-7-2018 - M. M. Sundresh And N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SC, and Mr.Jayapratap JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. M. Sundresh., J. and N. Anand Venkatesh., J. ) These writ appeals have been filed against the common order passed in WP.Nos.6040 to 6045 of 2018 dated 28.04.2018. One set of appeals in W.A.Nos.1198 to 1203 of 2018 has been filed by M/s.Vasan Health Care Private Limited and the other set of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1551 to 1556 of 2018 has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as petitioner and respondents as arrayed in the writ petitions. 3. Brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposing these appeals. 3.1. The petitioner filed its return for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2016-17 and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). The return of the Income Tax was scrutinized through CASS and assessments under section 143(3) of the Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and. This order was not challenged by way of filing an independent writ petition. In the meantime, the petition filed for rectification under section 154 of the Act which came to be rejected by the assessing officer by an order dated 13.04.2018. 3.7. All the above said subsequent events were also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the appeals. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the materials on record and on consideration of the arguments putforth on either side, disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to pay 5% of the tax demanded for each of the assessment years within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on complying with such condition, the petitioner company was also granted leave to file a fresh stay petition before the CITA and the CITA was directed to dispose all the stay petitions on merits and in accordance with law. 3.8. The common order that was passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner company, is now the subject matter of challenge by both the petitioner company as well as the department. 4. Submissions made by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the Department contended that the petitioner has not shown their bonafide by making any payment towards the tax dues and it is adopting dilatory tactics by filing one stay petition after another before various authorities. (ii) It was further submitted that the writ petitions were filed against the orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income tax and by the time the writ petitions were heard, the CITA disposed of the stay petition filed by the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the total demand and therefore the writ petitions themselves had became infructuous since the order passed by the CITA in the stay petition was not challenged by the petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge by passing final orders in the writ petition, had taken into consideration the orders passed by the CITA in the stay petitions and only thereafter the petitioner was directed to pay 5% of the tax demanded for each of the assessment years. This itself according to the learned standing counsel was a concession which the learned Single Judge ought not to have given to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that at this stage, the court cannot go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has not made out any case before the authorities by providing sufficient materials and by making necessary averments. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the intention of the petitioner is to drag on the matter and not to comply with the order passed by the authorities and for the first time in the writ petition, the petitioner was attempting to canvass the issue of financial constraints. (v) The learned Single Judge has dealt with in detail the contentions putforth by the petitioner and the department, and has exercised the discretion with sound reasons. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner company has established eye hospitals in various parts of the State and elsewhere in the country and has employed several persons and Doctors and several citizens require the care and attention of these hospitals. After taking into consideration all these factors, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to give one last opportunity to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to pay 5% of the tax demanded and thereafter to move a fresh stay petition before the CITA. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the discreti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
