Court emphasizes temporary nature of interim orders, rejects permanent benefit argument

The court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the power to vacate an interim injunction is not dependent on the filing of a counter. The court clarified the temporary nature of interim orders, whether issued by a court or an administrative authority, and highlighted that such orders can be challenged based on admitted facts or legal positions without the necessity of a counter. The court rejected the argument that an order by the State Government conferred a permanent benefit relieving tax liability, emphasizing that all interim orders are temporary and subject to withdrawal or revocation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether an interim injunction granted by one judge can be vacated by another judge in the absence of a counter filed by the State Government or other respondents in the writ petition.
2. The effect of an order by the State Government on tax liability and the validity of vacating an injunction based on such an order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether an interim injunction granted by one judge can be vacated by another judge without a counter filed by the State Government or other respondents. The court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, emphasizing that the power of the court to vary or set aside an interim order is not dependent on the filing of a counter. The court highlighted that interim orders can be challenged based on admitted facts or legal positions without the necessity of a counter. The court criticized the practice of delaying the disposal of cases due to the absence of counters, stating that the court's power should not be contingent on a party's actions. It clarified that any judge dealing with a matter can make appropriate orders, regardless of who granted the interim injunction.

2. The judgment also discussed the effect of an administrative order by the State Government on tax liability and the validity of vacating an injunction based on such an order. The court rejected the argument that an order by the State Government conferred a permanent benefit relieving tax liability. The court explained that the order directed a stay on tax collection pending further consideration, and withdrawing such an order does not absolve the tax liability. The court emphasized that all interim orders, whether by a court or an authority, are temporary and can be withdrawn or revoked. The court dismissed the appeal challenging the vacating of the injunction, stating that the effect of canceling or withdrawing interim orders remains the same, and there was no merit in the appeal's arguments.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the power to vacate an interim injunction is not dependent on the filing of a counter and clarifying the temporary nature of interim orders, whether issued by a court or an administrative authority.

---