AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Asopa, J.—In many of the above-mentioned cases notices were issued and after service the respondent Department has filed reply also. With the consent of the parties the cases were heard finally along with the fresh similar cases. In fresh cases the copy of writ petition was given to the counsel for the respondent Department and since common question of law based on similar facts are involved, therefore, all the cases have been heard and are being decided together.
The grievance of the petitioners is that their cases are pending before the ITSC which are required to be decided by 31st March, 2008 as per Section 245D(4A)(i) r/w Section 245HA(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 but the same have not been decided so far and in case the same are further not decided by 31st March, 2008, then the same shall abate by operation of law.
The facts in brief of the cases are that in all the petitions, applications have been filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Commission as per Chapter XIX-A of the Act of 1961 and the same have not been decided so far. Although in some cases, dates have been fixed but in remaining cases, no dates have been fixed. All the petitioners submit that they have fulfilled the eligibility criteria and in case their cases are not decided by 31st March, 2008, then same shall be abated as per Section 245HA(1)(iv) of the Act. The counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court as also of this Court passed by Co-ordinate Bench on 29th Jan. 2008 in SBCWP No. 10421 of 2007, Dhirendra Madan v. ITSC [reported as Mahima Real Estate (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. ITSC and Anr. (2008) 5 DTR 185; whereby a direction was given to settle/decide the matter of the petitioners positively on or before 31st March, 2008.
Mr. Singhi, the counsel for the respondent Department submits that time left is too short for deciding these cases and other similar cases pending before the authorities concerned. He further submits that even if the cases are not decided by 31st March, 2008, then the same shall abate but the same will be referred back to the concerned IT authorities.
Since the controversy is short and further covered by the judgment of this Court in Dhirendra Madan''s case (supra), therefore, I need not to refer the facts in detail and I am going to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of the provisions of the Act.
I have gone through the contents of writ petitions, reply filed by respondent Department and also considered the rival submissions of both the parties.
This Court vide order dt. 29th Jan., 2008, while deciding SBCWP No. 10421 of 2007 Dhirendra Madan''s case (supra), has held as under:
In view of the facts narrated above, it is directed to the Settlement Commission to settle/decide the matter of the petitioner positively on or before 31st March, 2008.
The writ petition is disposed of in view of the directions aforesaid.
As regards the submission of Mr. Singhi, that it is not possible for the ''Department to decide all these cases by 31st March, 2008, in that situation of abatement, after 31st March, 2008, the same will be referred back to the concerned IT authorities. In my view, the Department was aware of the aforesaid provisions, but it appears that no sufficient steps have been taken to decide the cases of the petitioners. Therefore, paucity of time cannot be a ground for denial of consideration of the case as prayed for by the petitioners. The later part of the submission of counsel for the respondent is not supported by any provision of law, therefore, the same is rejected.
In my view, the eligibility of each petitioner is to be left with the authorities concerned and further the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that their cases fall u/s 245HA(i)(iv) r/w Section 245D(4A)(i) of the Act appear to be correct and further in case pending cases are not decided by 31st March, 2008 as per Section 245D(4A)(i), same shall be abated, therefore, I am inclined to follow the above-referred judgment of the Coordinate Bench.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.
The respondents are directed to settle/decide the cases of the petitioners on or before 31st March, 2008 positively, if the period is not extended.