← Library
Madras High CourtWP/9498/2016disposed of

R.Thangarajan, v. The Assistant Commissioner Of

2016-03-16Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.03.2016

CORAM

THE Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY W.P.No.9498 of 2016 WMP No.8541 of 2016 R. Thangarajan .... Petitioner vs

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 6, Chennai - 600 006

2. The Manager, South Indian Bank, Adyar Branch, 11, 2nd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020 .... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner withdrawing funds towards the Cheques obtained from the petitioner under force dated 15.03.2016 and 24.03.2016 under Account No.0509053000001965 of the petitioner maintained with the second respondent branch. For petitioner :

Mr.S. Sundaresan For respondents :

Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph for Mr.T. Ravikumar Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his Order C.No.IV/16/05/2015-HPU dated 30.12.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents not to enforce the impugned order issued by the second respondent.

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that without serving the Assessment Order, the first respondent had obtained the cheques dated 15.3.2016 and 24.03.2016.

3.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Assessment Order was already served on the representative of the petitioner on 31.03.2015 itself i.e., the date, on which, the Assessment Order was passed. 4.

Mr.S. Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received the impugned order, alleged to have been served on the petitioner's representative. However, the learned counsel submitted that if two weeks time is granted to file an appeal, he would file an appeal as against the impugned order and in such an event, the respondent may be directed not to present the cheques for collection, till filing of the appeal.

5.

Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal, as against the order dated 31.03.2015 within a period of two weeks, the first respondent shall not present the cheques for collection. 6.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I give liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as against the order dated 31.3.2015 witin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and till such time, the first respondent is directed not to present the cheques for collection. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CO) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sr

To

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 6, Chennai - 600 006

2. The Manager, South Indian Bank, Adyar Branch, 11, 2nd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020 1 cc to M/s. S. Sundaresan, Advocate, Sr. 16900 1 cc to M/s.T. Ravikumar, Advocate, Sr. 16947 W.P.No.9498 of 2016 SNS (CO) kk 28/3