2002 (5) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is petition this court pass appropriate order for prohibiting/restraining the respondents and their successor-in-office from taking any further steps or proceedings to recover the disputed demand of Rs.1,10,43,910. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide annexure 6, dated February 7, 2002, represented before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Jaipur, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Jaipur, and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, in the matter of the disputed demand of Rs.1,10,43,910 plus interest outstanding against the petitioner for the block period April 1, 1989, to November 16, 1999. But no order whatsoever has been passed on the application for stayi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itional Commissioner. Since the petitioner has been granted the relief by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Jaipur, and availed of the parallel remedy, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and further prayed that the interim order granted by this court on March 4, 2002, may be vacated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the applications are pending before the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and despite the repeated requests and notices for demand of justice, the respondents are not passing any order whatsoever, on the representation, therefore, this present petition has been filed and there is no such bar for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227....