ENMAS ANDRITZ PRIVATE LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, N SOUNDRAPANDIAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyarpadmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned counsel for the respondents. With consent on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner has filed W.P.No.18806 of 2017 to forbear the first respondent from proceeding further pursuant to the notice dated 12.01.2017, issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In W.P.No.18807 of 2017, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the first respondent to consider his representation dated 20.01.2017, wherein the petitioner has claimed refund of the excise income tax paid by the petitioner for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioner in the said representation has also stated as to how their claim for refund is justified. This representation has been received in the office of the first respondent on 25.01.2017, and the matter is now pending.

(3.) In the meantime, the second respondent, who is the assessing officer of M/s.Resurgent Investments Pvt. Ltd., has issued the impugned notice stating that a sum of Rs.4,56,33,973/- is due as income tax from M/s.Resurgent Investments Pvt. Ltd., for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount. It has not been denied in the counter affidavit that the request made by the petitioner for refund is yet to be considered. However, in the counter affidavit, the officer has taken a stand that the petitioner will not be put to any loss and the notice was issued bearing in mind the national interest to recover the statutory dues.