TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order has been made on one basis and that lone basis is that the writ petitioner's case is not covered under 'Instruction No.1914 dated 02.12.1993 as modified by two Office Memoranda dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017' [hereinafter collectively 'said instruction' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. There is no disputation or disagreement as between the petitioner's counsel and the learned Revenue counsel that this is incorrect. This is evident and obvious from the first and second sentences in the first paragraph of impugned order. The first sentence says that stay of demand is governed by said instruction and second sentence says that writ petitioner is not covered by said instruction. As there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforementioned directive within aforementioned time line. - W.P.No.34296 of 2022 & W.M.P.No.33746 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2022 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR For Petitioner : Ms.Vandana Vyas along with Ms.A.Niveditha For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) and Ms.S.Premalatha Junior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) ORDER This order will now dispose of the captioned writ petition and captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition'['WMP' for the sake of brevity]. 2. Ms.Vandana Vyas, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel submitted that there was a search operation qua the writ petitioner under Section 132 of the 'Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition has been filed assailing the impugned order 3. Considering the narrow compass on which the captioned main writ petition turns, this Court deemed it appropriate to take up the captioned main writ petition with the consent of counsel for writ petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) along with Ms.S.Premalatha, learned Junior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) who accepted notice for both the respondents. 4. As already alluded to supra, the impugned order of the first respondent is terse and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 5. The impugned order has been made on one basis and that lone basis is that the writ petitioner's case is not covered under 'Instruction No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the writ petitioner seeking interim order is remitted back to the first respondent for consideration on its own merits and in accordance with law inter alia by applying said instruction; c) The above exercise shall be completed by the first respondent as expeditiously as his business would permit and in any event, within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 12.01.2023; d) Though obvious it is made clear that the writ petitioner's petition styled 'petition to keep the demand of tax in abeyance' before the first respondent now gets revived and the same will stand over for consideration by the first respondent as per the aforementioned directive within aforementioned time line. (e) Though obvious, it is made c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
