TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T I. P. Mukerji J.- Although initially it seemed that the writ application was completely meritless, it now appears that Ms. Sweta Ghatak, learned advocate for the petitioners, has been able to make out some substantial case in favour of the writ petitioners. For the assessment year 2010-11, the Income-tax Department claimed a sum of Rs. 50,42,410 as its dues from the writ petitioner. The asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk of Baroda with which the writ petitioners were maintaining their account a sum of Rs. 50,42,410 in full satisfaction of its claim. Two questions are raised on behalf of the writ petitioners. The first is that during the pendency of the appeal and the stay application the sum of Rs. 50,42,410 was realised in great haste. The action was arbitrary. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for about four months. It cannot be said that the writ petitioner received coercive action from the Income-tax Department with suddenness. It is trite that execution or recovery has to be made with promptitude. If a decree holder or the Revenue in Income-tax cases sleeps over a demand there would be every likelihood of their being unable to rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not unilaterally adjust the amount due on refund against a tax demand without giving a notice to the assessee. This was so because there was no appeal from set off orders. Therefore, if an amount of Rs. 42,96,720 has been set off against the above Income-tax demand, by the Income-tax authorities without notice to the writ petitioners they have acted contrary to this Division Bench judgment.....