1. HAMOJDUR RAHMAN, C. J.--This is an unusual application for stay of realization of tax assessed by the Income-tax Department against the West Pakistan Road Transport Board, Lahore.
2. The assessm ents were made in respect of years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1959-60 (Supplementary), 1960- 61 and 1961-62. The total amount of tax so assessed is Rs.2,32,62,120.
3. The demand notices under section 29 of the Income-tax Act were issued on 6-5-1971 and on the same day by separate notices under section 46 (5-A) attachments were levied on the bank accounts of the Road Transport Board.
4. These demand notices were issued after the appeals of the Board, against the aforesaid assessm ents, were dismissed on the 3rd February 1971.
5. The Board has applied to the Income-tax Tribunal for making a reference to the High Court and that application is to come up for hearing on the 30th June 1971, which is the last date of the financial year.
6. During the pendency of the application for reference to the High Court the Board applied to the Income-tax authorities for staying the realization of the tax but the authorities refused to do so.
7. Having exhausted his remedies before the revenue authori--ties, the Board on the 3rd June 1971, filed writ petition being No. 717 of 1971 in the Lahore High Court for an order under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 for restraining the Income--tax Department from proceeding with the collection of the tax. The High Court, it is said, on the 19th June 1971, dismissed the petition in limine by a short order to the following effect :- "For reasons to be recorded separately the writ petition is dismissed in limine."
8. Thereafter', the learned Judges dismissing the writ petition, it is stated, proceeded on their short summer-spell. The reasons have not yet been given nor has the Board been able to obtain a certified copy of even the short order. But in view of the urgency of the matter and the fact that the attachment levied by the Department has put the Road Transport Board into serious difficulties, it filed a petition for special leave on the 21st June 1971, which the Office refused to register as no copy of the judg--ment of the High Court was filed. The matter was put up before me. I heard the learned counsel and directed that the Miscellaneous petition alone should be posted for hearing before a Bench, after notice to the Income-tax Department and the Legal Adviser of that Department.
9. We have now heard both the learned counsel and have come t to the conclusion that the Miscellaneous petition for stay cannot be entertained unless the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal is registered and the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal cannot be registered until the High Court has delivered its judgment or order. The legal position appears to us to be that as long as the ' judgment remains pending in the High Court, the High Court has seizin of the matter and this Court cannot interfere. Under the provisions of Article 58 of the Constitution of 1962 this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from judgments decrees, orders and sentences of the High Court. While the matter is still pending in the High Court, the High Court alone has jurisdiction, for, until judgment is delivered, signed and sealed, the High Court is not functus officio with regard to the matter.
10. Having regard, however, to the fact that the Road Transport Board is running a public utility concern and is, for all intents and purposes, a subsidiary of the Provincial Government and that the effect of the attachment would be to practically stop the functioning of the road transport system with great inconvenience to the traveling public, we requested the learned counsel for the Department to consult the Commissioner as to whether some arrangement, without prejudice to the rights of either of the parties, could not be made to prevent such a calamity. We are happy to record that the Commissioner of Income-tax has agreed that he will stay of his own accord further recovery of the tax up to the 30th June 1971, and in case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal makes a reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act further attachment of the amount of deposits in the banks lying at the credit of the Board will be made only up to the extent of Rs. One crore subject to the condition that the High Court will dispose of the reference, if made oil a priority basis.
11. We have no doubt that having regard to the fact that the functioning of a public utility concern is in serious jeopardy the High Court will give the matter the maximum priority possible. This Miscellaneous petition must, however, be returned to the applicant on the ground that it cannot be entertained unless the petition is registered and the High Court has delivered its judgment.
12. Before we part with this case we must, however, record our disapproval of the procedure adopted by the High Court by passing a short order in a civil matter. Since the constitutional a writ petition was dismissed in limine, we can see no reason why the High Court could not have added a few more lines giving in brie the reasons for such dismissal.