TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate For the Revenue : Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate For Respondent-Bank : Madhu Dayal, Advocate JUDGMENT S. J. Vazifdar (ACJ) The petitioner seeks an order quashing a notice dated 04.01.2016 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 10.50 crores, a writ restraining respondent No.2-State Bank of India from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the petitioner. We are informed that the petitioner sought a stay of 180 days. The order, therefore, was limited to 180 days. On 25.03.2015, the petitioner filed another application for stay which, by an order dated 05.06.2015, was adjourned sine die and the Tribunal directed that no coercive measures be taken for recovery of the disputed demand in the meantime and directed status-quo to con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....over the amount lying to the credit of the petitioner in the respondent No.2-Bank. 4. We will assume that the order dated 05.06.2015 was not limited in time and that, therefore, recovery of the penalty was contrary to the order. In our view, however, there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in having recovered the amount. They were under the impression that the order dated ....