HIMAL ENTERPRISES P LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-company filed an application for stay dated November 18, 1996, along with Writ Petition No. 42 of 1996. In the aforesaid application for stay, the petitioner-company prayed for stay of operation of three notices being annexures P4, P5 and P6 filed along with the writ petition. Annexure P4 is a notice dated August 12, 1996, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalpaiguri Range, respondent No. 3, to the principal officer of the petitioner-company under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the I. T. Act"), asking the petitioner to submit a return for the assessment year 1990-91 within 30 days. This notice was issued as respondent No. 3, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1990-91 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Annexure P5 is a notice dated July 22, 1996, under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by which the petitioner was asked to submit a return within 35 days on receipt of the notice. This notice was issued as the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the petitioner's net wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1990-91 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. Annexure P6 is a notice dated July 22, 1996, by which the petitioner was asked to prepare a true and correct return of income of the petitioner in respect of which the petitioner was assessable under the Income-tax Act during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94. Further, the petitioner was informed that the return should be in the appropriate form as prescribed in rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and a blank return form was also enclosed. THE petitioner was asked to produce the accounts and/or documents before respondent No. 3, on August 9, 1996.

(2.) VIDE order dated November 22, 1996, the learned single judge of this court passed an order staying the operation of all the aforesaid three notices. The main grounds for granting stay by the learned single judge were that Writ Petition No. 1 of 1993-S. P. Wangdi v. Union of India; Writ Petition No. 9 of 1994-Nandu Thapa v. Union of India and Writ Petition No. 23 of 1994--T. R. Sharma v. Union of India involving similar questions were pending in this court and the learned single judge was of the view "Heaven would not fall if the income-tax authorities wait for some time more to see the out come of the writ petitions." In other words, stay was granted pending decision in the aforesaid writ petitions. The relevant portion of the order dated November 22, 1996, is as follows :

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed C. M. A. No. 38 of 1999 on March 15, 1999, praying for vacating the stay orders, which was disposed of on March 20, 1999. Interim order was again modified on March 20, 1999, on the undertaking supported by an affidavit signed and filed by the managing director of the company. The relevant portion of the order is as follows :