Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2209 of 2009 Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.R.No.5/JCIT/KUM/08-09, dated 09.01.2009 passed by the 4th respondent in the rejection of stay of the disputed arrears relating to the Assessment Years 2004- 05 and 2005-06 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent not to proceed further and pass such other further orders.
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2210 of 2009 Writ Petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in G.I.R.No.8025 P.A.No.AADPD7018E, dated 18.02.2009 passed by the 5TH respondent in the rejection of stay of the disputed arrears relating to the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent not to proceed further and pass such other further orders.
2.The petitioner, in both the writ petitions, is the State Government Transport Corporation and aggrieved by the Assessment Orders framed by the 4th & 5th respondent respectively, under Section 143(3) r/w
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the year 2001-02 to 2005-06, the petitioner filed appeals before the 3rd respondent on 21.01.2009 and the appeals are pending before the authorities. The petitioner also applied for stay of the assessment order for the year 2004-2005 and that is also pending.
3.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that various Divisions of the Transport Corporation in Karaikudi, Trichy and Pudukottai got merged with the Kumbakonam Division, by the order of the Company Law Board, dated 30.12.2003, with effect from 01.04.2001 and the respondents interpreted the amalgamation differently, resulting in multiplicity of the assessment orders against which appeals were filed by the petitioner.
4.It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeals before the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent has started and commenced the recovery proceedings inspite of the bad financial status of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the stay petition before the 5th respondent on 18.02.2009, to stay the recovery proceedings and that was rejected by the 5th respondent, dated 18.02.2009 without assigning any reason. Though the petitioner had moved the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent had taken the same on file and heard the matter in three hearings and the same is pending. While so, the respondents resorted to coercive recovery proceedings by attaching the bank accounts, which affected the day-to-day affairs of the Transport Corporation and hence, these writ petitions.
5.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondents are not considering the prayer for stay of collection of disputed arrears in proper perspective and without considering the fact that the petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Government Public Sector Undertaking and owns immovable properties and other properties, ought to have granted stay till the disposal of the appeal.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that thought they are aware of the fact that the petitioner is a Government Undertaking having immovable properties and having regard to the fact that tax arrears are more than 10 crores, unless the Income Tax Department takes recovery proceedings, it is not possible to collect the dues.
7.It is seen from the impugned order, no reason was stated for rejecting the stay of collection of tax. The 4th respondent has only stated that mere filing an appeal against the assessment order will not be sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. When the petitioner approaches the authority for the grant of stay and it is the duty of the authority to give reason either for granting stay or for refusal to grant the stay and without assigning any reason, the authorities should not have passed the order rejecting the request of the petitioner for stay. Admittedly, the appeals are pending and the petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking owned by Government of Tamil Nadu and is having huge immovable properties and movable properties such as Transport buses. Under these circumstances, the 4th respondent, ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for the stay of the recovery proceedings. Hence, I set aside the orders passed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.2209 of 2009, dated 09.01.2009 and the 5th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.2210 of 2009 dated 18.02.2005 and directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for the grant of stay and pass a speaking order.
8.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal as they have got a fair chance in the appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection for the disposal of the appeal at the earliest. Hence, it is ordered, directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his file, within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
9.With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
er To,
1.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli-620 001.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax II, No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapali-620 001.
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) No.4, Williams Road, Contonment, Tiruchirapalli-620 001.
4.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kumbakonam Range, No.31, Krishnasamy Road, Gandhinagar, Kumbakonam-612 001.
5.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, No.31, Krishnasamy Road, Gandhinagar, Kumbakonam-612 001.