MAMTA SOOD V. UNION OF INDIA

CWP/8778/2013

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various petitioners, including individuals and a company, against the Union of India and others, concerning orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-II Chandigarh. The petitioners sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash these orders and, alternatively, requested that the appeals be decided in a time-bound manner by respondent No. 6. The court, without delving into the jurisdictional issues, emphasized the need for a prompt decision on the appeals by respondent No. 6.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686856 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUP RATTAN; VINAY KUTHIALA; DIWAN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VAIDYA
• Keywords: Appeals; Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Quash Orders

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 8881 of 2013 a/w CWP No. 8882, 8883, 8884, 8875,8619,8620,8622,8623, 8625, 8626 ,8627, 8661, 8751, 8752, 8753, 8755, 8756, 8757, 8758, 8772, 8776, 8777 and 8778, of 2013. Date of decision: 04.12.2013. 1. CWP No. 8881 of 2013. Sh. Jai Kumar Sood …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents 2. CWP No. 8882 of 2013. Sh. Jai Kumar Sood …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. 3. CWP No. 8883 of 2013. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sood …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. 4. CWP No. 8884 of 2013. Sh. Jai Kumar Sood …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. 5. CWP No. 8875 of 2013. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sood …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents - 2 - 6. CWP No. 8619 of 2013. M/s Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 7. CWP No. 8620 of 2013. M/s Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 8. CWP No. 8622 of 2013. M/s Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 9. CWP No. 8623 of 2013. M/s Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 10. CWP No. 8625 of 2013. M/s Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 11. CWP No. 8626 of 2013. M/s Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 12. CWP No. 8627 of 2013. - 3 - M/s Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 13. CWP No. 8661 of 2013. M/s Prashanti Surya Construction Company (P) Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 14. CWP No. 8751 of 2013. Sh.Vijay Kumar Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 15. CWP No. 8752 of 2013. Sh.Vijay Kumar Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 16. CWP No. 8753 of 2013. Sh.Vijay Kumar Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 17. CWP No. 8755 of 2013. Sh.Vijay Kumar Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 18. CWP No. 8756 of 2013. Sh.Vijay Kumar Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 19. CWP No. 8757 of 2013. - 4 - Sh.Vijay Kumar Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 20. CWP No. 8758 of 2013. Sh.Vijay Kumar Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 21. CWP No. 8772 of 2013. Mamta Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 22. CWP No. 8776 of 2013. Mamta Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 23. CWP No. 8777 of 2013. Rama Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents 24. CWP No. 8778 of 2013. Mamta Sood. …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr.Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 5 - For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Central Government Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5. _______________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral) By the medium of these petitions, petitioners are praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-II Chandigarh, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petitions. In the alternative, they have prayed that respondent No. 6 be directed to decide the appeals in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned senior Advocate has stated at the Bar that only six months have elapsed when these appeals came to be presented before respondent No. 6 and there are number of old cases in the queue. He further, stated that this Court also lacks jurisdiction to entertain these petitions. 3. Without entering into the controversy, whether this Court has jurisdiction or not, we deem it proper to direct respondent No. 6 to decide the appeals as also interim applications, as early as - 6 - possible, preferably, within two months from today, strictly in accordance with law. The petitions stand disposed of, as also the pending applications. 4. The Registry to convey the order to respondent No. 6. Copy dasti. ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) Acting Chief Justice. December 04, 2013, (Kuldip Singh) (cm/krt) Judge. "