Smt. Neelam Lodha vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

K.S. Rathore, J.

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ, order or direction to direct the respondents, to grant stay on disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 and not to treat the humble petitioner as the defaulter and not to recover the said amount or any part of it from the petitioner. Petitioner further seeks writ, order or direction to the effect that pending hearing of this petition this court pass appropriate order for prohibiting/restraining the respondents and their successor in office from taking any further steps or proceedings to recover the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner vide Annexure 6, dated 7-2-2002, represented before the Commissioner (Central), Jaipur, Additional. Commissioner, Central Range-2 Jaipur and Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-2, Jaipur, in the matter of disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 plus interest outstanding against the petitioner for the block period 1-4-1989 to 16-11-1999. But no order whatsoever has been passed on the application for staying the disputed demand, dated 7-2-2002, by the authorities.

The petitioner have been moved before the Commissioner Central Range, the Additional. Commissioner Central Range, Jaipur, Deputy Commissioner Central Circle, Jaipur and the Tax Recovery Officer (Central), Jaipur, and also served the notice for demand of justice dated 20-2-2002. Despite service of the legal notice upon the respondents, they have not passed any order whatsoever on the application dated 7-2-2002.

The matter comes up on the application under article 226(3) of the Constitution of India moved by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had already invoked the alternative remedy before the Additional. Commissioner Central Range, Jaipur, and the Additional. Commissioner has passed the order dated 30-1-2002, by which the Additional. Commissioner Range Jaipur, has directed to pay 25 per cent of outstanding demand by 15-2-2002, and 50 per cent of outstanding demand by 25-3-2002, in case of failure to pay the 25 per cent of demand by 15th February, coercive measures of recovery will be taken as per law.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 30-1-2002 passed by Additional. Commissioner and failed to pay the 25 per cent of outstanding amount as directed by the Additional. Commissioner Central Range, Jaipur and availed the parallel remedy, therefore, present petition is not maintainable and further prayed that the interim order granted by this court on 4-3-2002, may be vacated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the application which are pending before the Addional. Commissioner and despite of the repeated requests and notices for demand of justice, respondents are not passing any order whatsoever, on the representation, therefore, this present petition has been filed and there is no such bar for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar (Late his Highness) Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench and Others, wherein this court has held that accountable person is entitled to an order of stay of collection of entire estate duty during pendency of appeal, Tribunal not justified in directing deposit of 25 per cent of disputed duty.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the respondent has already passed an order dated 30-1-2002, as per the direction of this order, the petitioner is directed to make the payment of 25 per cent of outstanding demand by 15-2-2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to make the payment of 25 per cent of outstanding demand as the petitioner''s financial conditions are not good.

Since the order already passed by the Additional. Commissioner, the petitioner is supposed to comply with the direction and if the petitioner has any objection he may raise before the competent authority and the respondents are free to realise the amount after giving the opportunity of being heard from the petitioner.

During the course of the argument it is also given out by learned counsel for the petitioner that matter is pending before the Settlement Commission but the Settlement Commission cannot proceed further until and unless the respondents furnish the report and without submission of such report the Settlement Commission cannot proceed further.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record and after careful examination of the judgment cited before me, I am of the view that respondents be directed to dispose of the application dated 7-2-2002, as early as possible but not later than one month in view of the judgment referred before me and strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Till the disposal of the application dated 7-2-2002 (Appendix. 6), interim order shall continue. The respondents are further directed to submit the report before the Settlement Commission as early as possible.

In view of the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed of.

OPEN