HC reserves judgment on transfer of CM's tax probe cases
After hearing arguments, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday reserved judgment over the petition filed by chief minister Virbhadra Singh challenging transfer of his income tax investigation cases.punjab Updated: Nov 26, 2014 19:08 IST
After hearing arguments, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday reserved judgment over the petition filed by chief minister Virbhadra Singh challenging transfer of his income tax investigation cases.
A division bench comprising chief justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan issued the directive after hearing arguments of both parties. Virbhadra, his wife Pratibha Singh, son Vikramaditya Singh, daughter Aparajita Kumari, one Anand Chauhan (caretaker of Virbhadra's orchards) and Chunni Lal Chauhan (proprietor of Universal Apples) had challenged the orders of the income tax commissioner to transfer their cases on the ground of conducting coordinated and joint investigation in all cases.
Challenging the income tax department's action, Virbhadra and the other petitioners had stated that the coordinated and joint investigation of all cases could also be conducted in Shimla and there was no need to transfer the cases to Chandigarh as this would only result in causing them harassment.
Earlier, during the previous hearing on October 15,, the high court had rejected preliminary objections raised by the income tax department against the petitions filed by Virbhadra Singh and his family members.
The income tax department had raised preliminary objections over maintainability of the writ petitions, stating the orders passed by the income tax department already stood implemented and therefore it had submitted the petitions has become anfractuous.
The income tax department also submitted the entire records pertaining to the case had already been transferred to the income tax commissioner at the department's central circle, Gurgaon and the deputy commissioner of income tax, central circle, Chandigarh on July 21 before the court passed the stay order.
Meanwhile, the court dismissed all objections and stated implementation of the order could not be a ground to dismiss the petition.