2009 (9) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Balachandran, for the appellant. Mr. R. Sathiamoorthy, for the respondent. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner, in both the writ petitions, is the State Government Transport Corporation and aggrieved by the Assessment Orders framed by the 4th & 5th respondent respectively, under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Income Tax Act  for the year 2001-02 to 2005-06, the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent has started and commenced the recovery proceedings inspite of the bad financial status of the petitioner.  Therefore, the petitioner filed the stay petition before the 5th respondent on 18.02.2009, to stay the recovery proceedings and that was rejected by the 5th respondent, dated 18.02.2009 without assigning any reason. Though the petitioner had ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat thought they are aware of the fact that the petitioner is a Government Undertaking having immovable properties and  having regard to the fact that tax arrears are more than 10 crores, unless the Income Tax Department takes recovery proceedings, it is not possible to collect the dues. 7. It is seen from the impugned order, no reason was stated for rejecting the stay of collection of tax. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceedings. Hence, I set aside the orders passed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.2209 of 2009, dated 09.01.2009 and the 5th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.2210 of 2009 dated 18.02.2005 and directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for the grant of stay and pass a speaking order. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent....