Anil Dhirajlal Ambani Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court addressed a praecipe (a formal application to the court) moved by Anil Dhirajlal Ambani seeking an urgent hearing regarding a notice issued by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, dated April 12, 2022. Mr. Gunjan Kakkad, the learned Counsel representing the Petitioner, argued for the urgency of the matter. However, the Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the submissions, expressed its disapproval of the attempt to create artificial urgency to secure an immediate hearing. The court explicitly stated that the facility for urgent circulation of a matter cannot be invoked under such circumstances, especially when the challenge is merely directed at a show cause notice, which typically requires a response from the recipient before any adverse action is taken.
Furthermore, the High Court took note of the timing of the Petitioner’s approach to the court. It observed that the Petitioner had moved the court at a very late stage, particularly considering that the assessment proceedings related to the notice were likely to become time-barred by March 31, 2025. This delay in approaching the court, especially when the limitation period for the assessment was nearing its end, appeared to have influenced the court’s decision. Consequently, the Bombay High Court not only dismissed the praecipe for an urgent hearing but also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the Petitioner. This cost was directed to be paid to Tata Memorial Hospital, providing specific details for the bank account where the payment should be made, including the bank name, branch, address, telephone and fax numbers, account number, account type, IFSC code, and MICR code. The court mandated that this cost be paid within two weeks from the date of the order. The matter was then directed to be listed on its originally assigned date, indicating that while the urgent hearing was denied, the case would still be taken up in due course according to the court’s regular schedule. The imposition of cost serves as a reprimand for attempting to create artificial urgency and approaching the court at a belated stage when statutory timelines were approaching.
