Calcutta H.C : The writ petitioner was willing to furnish a bank guarantee for the disputed amount of about Rs. 8 lakh; none the less an attachment order has been passed under s. 281B and consequentially s. 230A clearance has been refused.

High Court Of Calcutta

Sushil Kumar & Co. vs. JCIT

Sections Art. 226

Ajoy Nath Ray, J.

Writ Petition No. 1507 of 1999

12th July, 1999

Counsel Appeared : Dr. D.P. Pal, for the Petitioner

JUDGMENT

AJOY NATH RAY, J.:

The respondents are not called upon in this application. Dr. Pal submits and relies in regard to such submission on para 22 of the petition, that the writ petitioner was willing to furnish a bank guarantee for the disputed amount of about Rs. 8 lakh; none the less an attachment order has been passed under s. 281B and consequentially s. 230A clearance has been refused.

2. Nothing is there in the correspondence to show that any offer of bank guarantee was made to the Department. It has been made for the first time to the writ Court. Sec. 281B order records that no arrangement by way of bank guarantee was made. There is no impeachment of that sentence in the writ petition as being incorrect or mala fide. Furthermore, if in regard to the outstandings of the two assessments years appeals are possible, and stay pending such appeal can also be applied for in the Department, I do not see why the writ Court should be approached. It is most improper that when the Department claims for bank guarantee it will not be given and then the party will come to Court and offer a bank guarantee for obtaining an interim order from the writ Court. This is an abuse of the process of law, which permits issuance of high prerogative writs in extraordinary circumstances when there is not adequate alternative remedy left to the person, who has all long acted in bona fide and clean manner. The writ petitioner does not satisfy this test. The application is summarily rejected with costs assessed at Rs. 10,500.

[Citation : 246 ITR 293 ]

Malcare WordPress Security