JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act)holding the petitioner not to be a ‘Local Authority’ and thus exempt from payment of Income Tax under Section 10(20) of the Act. The assessment proceedings in question are for the assessment year 1991-92. It appears, after the assessment order was made, attachment orders were issued against the petitioner for recovery of the tax demanded and it bank account attached. While issuing notice to show cause the Court restrained the respondents from effecting any recovery from the petitioner and also stayed the operation of the notices of demand.
(2) The assessment order was made on 31.3.94 by the Assessing Officer. An appeal against this order was filed under the Act on 24.4.94. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears that the order of the Assessing Officer was stayed. The appeal filed before the Cit (Appeals) was dismissed on 2.12.94. In normal circumstances the second appeal could have been preferred to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and when this fact was pointed out Mr. Arun)aitley,the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the question of inherent jurisdiction is involved the writ petition is also maintainable. He states that there are various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Court in support of the submission that the writ petition would lie and he says that in some cases the judgments referred to the Committees like the petitioner. Mr. Jaitley referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Premji Jiva v. State of Gujarat, 1991(3) Scc 851; Commissioner of Income Tax. A.P. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 143 Itr 1020 (A.P.); and Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti v. Income Tax Officer and Others, 158 Itr 742 (Bombay).
(3) On the other hand, Mr. Pandey the learned Counsel for the Revenue stated that since an efficacious alternative remedy was available the petitioner show go to the tribunal and should not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission Mr. Pandey referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Another v .State of Orissa and Another, 142 Itr 663 and also to decision of the Bombay High Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. A.K. Jain, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, and Others, 185 Itr 513; and a.Kerala High Court decision in Antonitto v. Tax Recovery Officer and Another, 171 Itr 461. It is also submitted by Mr. Pandey that Section 10(29) of the Act has also to be considered. We may reproduce Section 10(20) & 10(29) of the Act as under :– Section 10(20)-The income of a Local Authority which is chargeable under the head Income from house property’, ‘Capital gains’ or Income from other sources’ or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdiction area; Section 10(20)-In the case of an authority constituted under any law for the time being in force for the marketing of commodities, any income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities;).
(4) The expression ‘Local Authority’ has not been defined in the Act; though ‘its definition under the General Clauses Act would be applicable. In any case we are of the opinion that the question – ‘whether the petitioner would fall under Section 10(20) and or Section 10(29) of the Act could be decided by the Appellate Tribunal under the Act. It is not a case where the petitioner has come to this Court immediately when notice under the Act was. issued. But it has already availed of remedy of appeal in the firstinstance.ln:hesecircumstances, primarily keeping in view.the decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills case (supra) we would not like to interfere and would direct the petitioner to avail its remedy under the Act and file an appeal before the Tribunal if it feels aggrieved by the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals). Mr. Pandey the learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that for 4 months the demand in question shall be kept in abeyance and the pay order received from the Bank on account of attachment issued by the Revenue shall be returned to the petitioner. It was submitted that the pay orders had not been encashed in view of the interim order granted by this Court, This appears to be a fair offer. Another question was also revised that the proceedings for assessment year 1985-86 were also pending. For this year, Mr. Pandey states that the demands, if any, shall not be raised against the petitioner. Thus we direct that while the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 may go on the demands, if any, shall not be enforced, till the appeal in the present case is heard and decided by the Appellate Tribunal. Let the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal be filed immediately and we hope that in view of the importance of the question of law involved the Appellate Tribunal would be able to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. With these observations this petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.