MAYURA PRIME ESTATES LTD. Vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT intra -court appeal has been filed against order of learned Single Judge dt. 06.11.2013 directing the appellant petitioner to deposit 50% of the demand pursuant to order impugned passed by Income Tax Settlement Commission ( ''Commission '') dt. 28.06.2013 pending adjudication of the dispute and on these terms the stay application was accordingly disposed of and the writ petition was ordered to be listed for admission. Counsel for appellant vehemently urged that the order of the Commission impugned before the learned Single Judge in the pending proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction and the mechanism which has been adopted by the Commission in passing of order impugned in all fairness is not in conformity with the mandate of law and the demand which is now being raised against the appellant to deposit pursuant to order impugned of the Commission is per se bad in the eye of law and further submits that after taking note of the submissions the learned Single Judge didn't express a prima facie opinion on merits while passing order on the stay application directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the demand and the balance was kept in abeyance and further observed that if the petitioner succeeds he will be entitled for refund of the amount with interest as per the rate prescribed under the statute.

(2.) COUNSEL submits that if the appellant petitioner is called upon to deposit even 50% of the demand in terms of order impugned of the Commission which he is unable to deposit, in this scenario pendency of writ petition remains insignificant and further submits that balance of convenience & irreparable loss have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while granting interim protection to the appellant under order impugned dt. 06.11.2013.

(3.) AS regards the submission made regarding assailing of the order of the learned Single Judge on merits suffice it to say that it will not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion when the proceedings are pending before the learned Single Judge and the parties are at liberty to raise their objections in the pending proceedings and expressing any opinion by this Court will certainly prejudice rights of the either party in the pending proceedings before the learned Single Judge.