Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Krishna vs Income on 20 December, 2010
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/15473/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15473 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

KRISHNA
COLD STORAGE - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

INCOME
TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4) & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRS
SWATI SOPARKAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/12/2010 

 

 
 


 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

Mr. S.N. Soparkar,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
invited attention to the communication dated 8th August,
2008 to submit that the respondent no.1 had initially called upon the
petitioner to state as to whether it was willing to pay the
compounding fees of Rs. 4,79,153/- and to give its consent in
writing. That, despite the fact that the petitioner had given its
consent on 13th August, 2008, the respondent no.1 did not
take any action thereon. Now, at a belated stage, the respondent
no.1, vide communication dated 23rd August, 2010 has asked
for consent of the petitioner for payment of compounding fees at a
much higher rate. It is submitted that on account of no fault on the
part of the petitioner, the respondent is not justified in calling
upon the petitioner to pay a higher amount by way of compounding
fees.

Having regard to the
aforesaid, issue notice returnable on 24th January, 2011.

Direct service qua
the respondent no.1 is permitted. The petitioner is permitted to
serve the respondent no.2 directly by Regd. Post A.D. in addition to
normal mode of service.

[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]

[H.B.

ANTANI, J.]

pirzada/-

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.104 seconds.