R VARADARAJAN Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows: 1. THE writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in TR. Nos. 24 to 30 of 1995-96 and quash the order dated 22-6-1995 and, consequently, direct the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Madras (the third respondent), to return the documents of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition.

(2.) THE impugned order passed is a certificate issued under section 222 or 223 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i. e. , notice of demand issued under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act by the Tax Officer to the petitioner. THEre is no dispute that there was an assessment made on the petitioner for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1991-92 and after the assessments have been made the demands have been raised. Re-notice under rule 22 of the Second Schedule was issued by the Tax Officer on the ground that the petitioner has not cleared the amounts covered in the notice of demand. As far as the other part of the prayer in the writ petition for a direction to return the documents mentioned in the writ petition is concerned, the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit stating that with regard to the first two documents, the department has not seized the documents, but only a prohibitory order was issued by the Assistant Director (Investigation ). In view of the statement made by the Assistant Commissioner, City Circle (II), Chennai, in the counter-affidavit, there cannot be any direction to return the two Fixed deposit Receipt Nos. 6341 and 6312 of 1988. Insofar as the other documents are concerned, the petitioner, as seen from the impugned notice of demand, is in arrears of tax to the extent of Rs. 45, 65, 545 as on 23-2-1995. In view of the huge arrears of tax, it is not possible for this Court to give a direction to the respondents to return the documents to the petitioner. THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the TRO in his letter dated 16-1-1996 has categorically stated that it is not possible to consider the stay of recovery of action unless and until the petitioner is in a position to offer sufficient security for the said amount or in the alternative, the petitioner was directed to pay the amount mentioned in the demand notice towards the arrears of the deputation. THE learned counsel submitted that the assessee has challenged the order of assessment and the appeals are pending on the file of the Tribunal in it Appeal Nos. 2426 to 2432 (Mad.) of 1995 and the learned counsel submitted that the appeals are pending from November 1995 and he has further submitted that if he succeeds in the appeal, there is a good chance that the amounts demanded are reduced, and if the properties are sold in the meantime, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. THEre is no dispute that the appeals filed by the petitioner are pending on the file of the Tribunal from 1995 and if the appeals are disposed of at an early date, the petitioner would be in a position to know the correct amount of tax which he would be liable to pay. Hence, in my view, there should be a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals preferred by the petitioner in IT Appeal Nos. 2426 to 2432 (Mad.) of 1995 within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.