1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks urgency on the ground that petitioner is facing serious hardship, as the bank accounts of the petitioner have been attached, whereas, huge demand has been created without confronting the petitioner with adverse material and report, whereas, impugned demand is subject matter of appeal to be finally decided on merits by the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue in the instant case. Learned counsel for the respondent present in Court does not oppose the grant of urgency , which is accordingly granted.
2. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petition er under instructions submits that petitioner will be satisfied, and will not press instant petition, provided that the impugned order on injunction application may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner afresh through speaking order by assigning cogent reasons, as according to learned counsel, while passing the impugned order , neither any finding has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal on three basic ingredients to be considered on injunction application i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or damage, nor the facts and the legal points involved in the case have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue has already exercised its powers to grant or reject the stay application filed by the petitioner , therefore instant Constitutional Petition is not maintainable, however , could not controvert the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that no independent finding on three basic factors (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) and irreparable loss or injury has been recorded, nor cogent reasons have been assigned by the .Appellate Tribunal, while refusing to grant injunction to the petitioner in the instant case, therefore, does not seriously oppose disposal of the instant petition by remanding the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal with the directions to decide the injunction application afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to both the parties, in accordance with law.
3. Accordingly , instant petition is disposed of with the directions to the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue to decide the stay application of the petitioner afresh, after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties, in accordance with law, preferably , within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order . Whereas, it is expected that finding shall be recorded in respect of three basic factors, as referred to hereinabove, keeping in view the facts and legal issues involved in the instant case. In the meanwhile respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of impugned demand, which is subject matter of appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has further prayed that in the meanwhile, the bank accounts of the petitioner may be directed to be de-attached, as according to learned counsel, the respondents have already recovered substantial amount from the petitioner's accounts, whereas, according to learned counsel, due to attachment of bank accounts, petitioner is not in a position to carry on the norm al business activities, therefore, being deprived of fundamental right to carry on his lawful business as guaranteed under the Constitution.
5. We are of the opinion that at this stage such request of the petitioner cannot be entertained by us as it may prejudice the case of either party , therefore, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to make such request before the concerned Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, who shall examine the Same strictly in accordance with law, without prejudice to decision in the instant petition.
6. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with listed application.