A division bench of justices G Huluvadi Ramesh and Okay Kalyana Sundaram gave the oral course when an enchantment filed by Maran, difficult the October 10 single-judge order dismissing his petition filed against the I-T motion, got here up for listening to.
Besides Maran, appeals have been filed by Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd and South Asia FM Limited, linked to his brother and media baron Kalanithi Maran, whose petitions against the I-T notices have additionally been dismissed.
When the appeals got here up for listening to, senior counsels for the previous minister apprehended that the I-T division may take “undue” benefit of the Dussera court docket holidays beginning Saturday and difficulty evaluation orders, making the appeals infructuous, and stated the curiosity of the appellants needed to be protected.
Opposing this, Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan argued that the only decide had rightly handed the order, including that if the appellants have been aggrieved, they’d the choice of approaching the appellate authority.
The bench posted the appeals for additional listening to to October 22.
In his order, Justice S M Subramaniam had stated Maran, who held the excessive place of a Union minister, was obligation certain to reply to the I-T division’s discover to show his innocence or in any other case.
Maran had challenged the I-T division’s March 27, 2015 discover, issued below part 148 of the Income Tax Act, for re-assessment of his earnings for 2008-09 and 2009-10, when he was the Telecom minister.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charged Maran with forcing Aircel proprietor C Sivasankaran to half along with his stake within the firm in favour of Malaysia’s Maxis Communications Berhad when he was the Telecom minister.
Maran had pointed to his discharge within the case by a CBI court docket in New Delhi on February 2 final yr in help of his plea for quashing the I-T discover.
Dismissing the plea, the decide had stated the petition was filed on the discover stage itself, which might hamper all additional proceedings of the I-T division and it may by no means be inspired by the court docket.
He had additionally concurred with the submissions of the I-T division’s counsel that the petition couldn’t be entertained by the excessive court docket as a treatment was obtainable earlier than the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.