- (1.) The controversy involved in this case lies in a very narrow compass. Against the assessment order the petitioner has preferred an appeal and along with memo of appeal he has filed an application for interim relief. However, the application for interim relief has not been entertained for want of statutory provision to grant interim relief. There cannot be any such bar in the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITO v. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815 ; AIR 1969 SC 430, wherein the apex court has held that every appellate authority has implied and incidental power to grant interim relief even if the statute does not provide.
(2.) In view of the above observations, the order passed by the appellate authority dated January 6, 2004, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned appellate authority. We dispose of this petition requesting the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for interim relief expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him, which the petitioner undertakes to file within one week from today. For a period of four weeks no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the tax in pursuance of the impugned order dated December 10, 2003.
(3.) In view of the above observations, the order passed by the appellate authority dated January 6, 2004, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned appellate authority.;