Disposed

Indian Institute of Health and Family Welfare, v. The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Ii

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WP/25246/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed in 2006 challenging a tax stay rejection, noting the 17-year pendency. The court disposes of the petition, directs the Assessing Officer to decide the pending appeal within three months, and maintains the interim relief until the appeal concludes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of; the interim stay remains operative until the appeal is decided within three months.

Indian Institute of Health and Family… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^33E6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 25246 OF 2006

¶9

Between:

¶10

lndian lnstitute of Health & Family Welfare, (Govt. of A.P.) H.No. B-3-167/HFW, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad, Rep by its Director C.B.S. Venkata Ramana

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Assistant Director of lncome Tax^{(Exemptiong)-ll,} Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of lncome Tax^{(Appeals)-lV,} 3'" Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Director of lncome Tax (Exemptions), A.P. Olympic Bhavan, L.B.Stadium, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad.

¶16

rhe Branch Manaser, Andhra Bank, Sanjeevareddy""nr. n,rSElISAt

¶17

DENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order of the 3'd respondent in Letter No.226 DIT(E)/Stay/2006-2007, dated 15-11-2006 as illegal, bad and violative of Art. 14 of the constitution of lndia and set aside the same directing the 1tt respondent not to take any coercive steps for the recovery of the petitioner's tax dues for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending disposal of ita appeal before the 3'd respondent and pass such other order or orders as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 32324 OF 2006)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the recovery proceedings for the assessment year 2003-2004 initiated by the 1't respondent including the notice No. 266(3)/ADIT(E)-ll/HYD, dt. 29-9-2006

¶21

issued under section 2:16(3) of the lncome Tax Act^'1961 to the 4tr' rer;pondent, the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank pending disposal of the above !'ril Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitir,ner : SRI A.V.KRISHNA KOUNDIIIYA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 : Ms K.MAMA'[A, SO t:OF: INCOME TAX

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.RAJI REDDY, SC F()Fl INCOME TAX Counsel for the Resp,rndent No.4 : SRI V.DYUMANI

¶25

The Court made the f,>llowing: ORDER

¶26

IIONOURABLE SRI .IUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND

¶27

IION'BLE SRI WSTICE LA:OVII NARAYANA ALISIIETTY

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.25246 OF 2006

¶29

ORI)ER:troer ao n'ble Sii JtLstie P-Som Koshg/

¶30

Heard, Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. K.Mamatha learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶31

The instant writ petition has been Iiled aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2006 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the application for grant of stay under Section 220(61 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected. The instant writ petition is one, which was hled in the year 20O6 and interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner as early on lL.l2.2OO6. The interim order continues to be in operation till date. The interim relief prayed by the petitioner was, the stay of recovery proceedings arising out of the order dated 24.O3.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer till the hnalization of the appeal.

¶32

The facts are that the assessment order was dated 24.O3.2006, which \Mas subjected to challenge before the respondent No.2 ald during the pendency of the appeal, the

¶33

PSK,J& LNA,J l'l' |to.25246 of2006

¶34

¶35

petitioner hen:in moved an application for grant cf intr:rim relief before the Asr;essing Officer under Section 220(61 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected, against which thr: instant writ petition has b een filed. It is about 17 years that wdt petition is pending befor,: this Court. In all probabililv, the ztpp:al before respondent Nrl.2 also in the intervening period rmrst have got decided.

¶36

In view of the same, we do not inter d to keep tJle writ petition pend rg any further. The Writ Petition accor<lingly stands disposed of. Ir onetheless, in case, if the appeal is :;till pending, respondent No.2 is expected to decide the appreal within a further period of threr: (O3) months. Meanwhile, the interirn relief earlier granted woulc also remain in operation. If the allpe al stands decided, the ir rterim order loses its efficacy arrtom:Ltical y. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37