D.B. W.P.(C) No. 02 of 2011. Case: Teesta Rangit Private Limited Vs Union of India. Sikkim High Court
| Case Number | D.B. W.P.(C) No. 02 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pradeep Aggarwal, Jorgay Namka, Zola Magi, Pema Bhutia, Jigdal G. Chankapa, Panila Theengh and Naresh Subba, Advocates and For Respondents: A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate, Manish Kr. Jain, Advocate, L.D. Lepcha Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, A. Mariarputham, Advocate General, Karma Thinlay, Sr. Govt. Advocate, S.K. Chettri and Pollin ... |
| Judges | Narendra Kumar Jain, C.J. and Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 2 |
| Judgement Date | September 18, 2014 |
| Court | Sikkim High Court |
Judgment:
Narendra Kumar Jain, C.J.
-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
-
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with the following prayers:
(a) to hold that the provisions of the Central Act are not applicable to the petitioner No. 1 as it is a company registered under the Registration of Company Act, Sikkim, 1961 and not under the Indian Company Act, 1956, which is not implemented in the State and consequently the notice dated 02.12.2010, the survey proceedings conducted by respondent No. 3 to 5 within the premises of petitioners on 23.12.2010 and 24.12.2010, the notice issued on the spot and all other acts and deeds of the respondent are illegal, bad and without jurisdiction;
(b) to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction holding and directing the respondents to uniformly apply the provisions of the Central Act to all corporate, companies, hotels, etc. who are registered under the Registration of Companies Act, Sikkim, 1961 and not to single out the petitioners, when the same are not applied to other corporate assessees in the State of Sikkim;
(c) to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction holding that the survey proceedings conducted by respondents No. 3 to 5 within the premises of the petitioners is without jurisdiction, bad and illegal;
(d) to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 02.12.2010 and 24.12.2010 issued by the respondents;
(e) to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to return the books/documents in question along with two cheques dated 24.12.2010 amounting to Rs. 50 lacs of the petitioners in possession of the respondents No. 3 to 5, which were, seized during the impugned survey operations as per Panchnama;
(f) pass any other direction/s, relief/s, order/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case;
(g) allow the costs of writ petition.
-
A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, counter affidavits were filed by respondent No. 2 and respondents No. 1, 3 to 6. The rejoinder was also filed by the petitioners.
-
Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the petitioner-company, registered under the provision of Registration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial