Anita Sumanth, J. :

1. Mr. A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both sides, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Brief submissions of Mr. Venkatraman, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. R.Venkatnarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents are as follows: The petitioner is a trust formed under a deed of trust executed on 1st Aug., 2000 and manages an Engineering College from 2001 onwards. Registration under s. 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the "Act") was initially granted on 22nd Oct., 2002 and approval under s. 10(23C)(vi) was initially granted on 30th April, 2008.

3. A search under s. 132 of the Act was conducted by the IT Department consequent to which assessments were completed for asst. yrs. 2010-11 under s. 143(3) r/w s. 153 (A) and 2011-12 under s. 143(3), both dt. 28th March, 2018. The benefit of exemption under s. 10(23C)(vi) as well as under s. 11 were rejected. Other adjustments, including an addition towards collection of alleged unaccounted fees/capitation fees was made. The petitioner filed a first appeal challenging the assessments before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short "CIT(Appeals").

4. Pending appeals, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) (in short "DGIT(Inv)’) initiated proceedings for cancellation of notification under s. 10(23C)(vi). Proceedings were also initiated for cancellation of registration under s. 12AA of the Act by issue of notice under s. 12AA(3) on 18th July, 2013. The proceedings for cancellation were not immediately pursued by the Department and were continued only after a gap of three years by issue of letter dt. 26th Sept., 2016 by the Principal CIT. Despite objections advanced filed by the petitioner, the registration was cancelled by order dt. 19th June, 2018 passed under s. 12AA(3) of the Act against which an appeal was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the "ITAT") on 13th Feb., 2017 in ITA No. 370 of 2017. The Approval under s. 10(23C)(vi) was cancelled by the DGIT(Inv) by Order dt. 18th Nov., 2014 retrospectively with effect from asst. yr. 2010-11 onwards.

5. The first appeals filed before the CIT(A) challenging orders of assessment dt. 28th March, 2013 were dismissed on 12th Jan., 2017. Appeals in ITA Nos. 637 and 638 of 2017 were filed before the Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") challenging the order of the CIT(A) dt. 12th Jan., 2017.

6. All the appeals were dismissed on 19th June, 2018 by the Tribunal as against which Miscellaneous Applications under s. 254(2) of the Act have been filed in M.A.No. 186 of 2018 (ITA 370/2017) and M.A.Nos. 187 and 188 of 2018 (ITA Nos. 637 and 638 of 2017) seeking a rectification of the orders dt. 19th June, 2018 on the basis that the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner have not been taken into consideration. The petitioner has also filed stay petitions before the Tribunal in S.A.No. 311/MDS/2018 and 312/MDS/2018 on 28th Sept., 2018 seeking a stay of operation of the orders of the CIT(A) and the consequential demand for the asst. yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12.

7. The Miscellaneous Applications are being adjourned from time to time (5th Oct., 2018, 26th Oct., 2018, 9th Nov., 2018, 1st Feb., 2019 and 15th Feb., 2019 on account of non-functioning of the specific Bench which is to hear them. The stay petitions were also listed on various dates, (5th Oct., 2018, 26th Oct., 2018, 9th Nov., 2018, 1st Feb., 2019, the last date of listing being 15th Feb., 2019, but are yet to be decided.

8. While this is so, and even during the pendency of the Miscellaneous Applications as well as the Stay Petitions, coercive recovery action was initiated by the 1st respondent.

9. The petitioner filed a request before the Tax Recovery Officer, arrayed as the 1st respondent herein on 21st Jan., 2019 requesting him to grant a months" time to arrive at a proposal for settlement of the disputed liability. A request was also made on 21st Jan., 2019 for lifting of the attachments made by the 1st respondent. The request was rejected on 28th Jan., 2019 by the TRO stating that, as on date of the order, an amount of Rs. 6,09,14,857 was pending against the petitioner in respect of which there was no stay of collection that had been granted by any Appellate Authority. The petitioner was thus, called upon to pay the entire demand immediately to avoid coercive action.

10. On 7th Feb., 2019, a certificate in Form No. ITCP 2 was issued attaching movables, being four buses belonging to the petitioner, to be kept in the custody of the IT Department in its premises at the Aayakar Bhavan at Nungambakkam High Road.

11. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a declaration that the orders of assessment for asst. yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 are invalid in law and seeking a quashing of TRC Nos. 38 & 39/CR/2/18-19 dt. 28th Jan., 2019 in respect of asst. yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively and a direction to the TRO not to initiate any further coercive proceedings till the disposal of the writ petition.

12. Mr. A.P.Srinivas, learned senior standing counsel who has taken notice for the respondents defends the impugned proceedings and states that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine since the petitioner has already approached the statutory authorities for appropriate relief.

13. The sequence and events as noted by me above reveal that the petitioner has rightly approached the appellate authorities challenging the cancellation of registration under s. 12AA as well as the orders of assessment dt. 28th March, 2013. The litigation has travelled through the hierarchy of appeals and is now pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the final fact finding authority. As such, there is no avenue to interfere with the orders of assessment orders at this juncture, also for the reason that the orders of assessment impugned before me stand telescoped into appellate orders dt. 12th Jan., 2017 passed by the CIT(A) and 19th June, 2018 by the Tribunal. I am thus not inclined to consider the first prayer of the petitioner for a declaration that the assessments in question are invalid.

14. In this context, Mr. Venkatraman has drawn attention to the provisions of s. 143(3), as amended by insertion of the first proviso thereto vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 that reads thus:

(1) ......

(2).........

(3) On the day specified in the notice

(i) issued under sub-s. (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence and after taking into account such particulars as the assessee may produce, the AO shall, by an order in writing, allow or reject the claim or claims specified in such notice and make an assessment determining the total income or loss accordingly, and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment;

(ii) issued under cl. (ii) of sub-s. (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the AO may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the AO shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee, and and determine the sum payable by him or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment: Provided that in the case of a—

(a) research association referred to in cl. (21) of s. 10;

(b) news agency referred to in cl. (22B) of s. 10;

(c) association or institution referred to in cl. (23A) of s. 10;

(d) institution referred to in cl. (23B) of s. 10;

(e) fund or institution referred to in sub-cl. (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-cl. (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-cl. (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-cl. (via) of cl. (23C) of s. 10, which is required to furnish the return of income under sub-s. (4C) of s. 139, no order making an assessment of the total income or loss of such research association, news agency, association or institution or fund or trust or university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, shall be made by the AO, without giving effect to the provisions of s. 10, unless—

(i) the AO has intimated the Central Government or the prescribed authority the contravention of the provisions of cl. (21) or cl. (22B) or cl. (23A) or cl. (23B) or sub-cl. (iv) or sub-cl. (v) or sub-cl. (vi) or sub-cl. (via) of cl. (23C) of s. 10, as the case may be, by such research association, news agency, association or institution or fund or trust or university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, where in his view such contravention has taken place; and

(ii) the approval granted to such research association or other association or fund or trust or institution or university or other educational institution or hospital or other medical institution has been withdrawn or notification issued in respect of such news agency or fund or trust or institution has been rescinded:’

15. The specific argument advanced by him is that the assessments themselves are invalid in the light of the proviso to s. 143(3) of the Act that casts a mandate upon the AO to frame an assessment denying the benefit of s. 10(23C) of the Act unless the officer had intimated the Central Government or the prescribed authority the specifics of the contravention of the statutory provision and such approval had consequently been withdrawn. According to the learned senior counsel, this mandatory exercise had not been carried out and this vitiated the proceedings in entirety.

16. However, in the light of the fact that the Miscellaneous Applications of the petitioner are pending before the Tribunal, and in the light of my conclusion in para 13 of this order, I do not propose to delve upon this legal submission at this juncture as it will, no doubt, be considered by the Tribunal while disposing the Miscellaneous Applications, in accordance with law.

17. The second limb of the prayer in the writ petitions is to direct the 1st respondent not to take coercive action till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The interests of justice, I believe, will be served if the Tribunal should take up the Stay Petitions in S.A.Nos. 311 and 312/Mds/2018 filed on 28th Sept., 2018 for hearing and disposal forthwith.

18. Accordingly, with the express consent of learned counsel before me, I direct the Tribunal to list the stay applications on Friday, 22nd Feb., 2019, and dispose the same after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. No separate notice of hearing need be issued by the Registry of the Tribunal and both learned counsel before me will instruct the parties to appear for the hearing of the stay petitions on 22nd Feb., 2019 and cooperate in their conduct and disposal.

19. As regards the attachment of the movables, it is brought to my notice that the buses are used to facilitate the movement of students between their homes and the college. Students should not be made to suffer on account of the conflict inter se the petitioner and the IT Department. Thus, while the attachment dt. 7th Feb., 2019 will continue, the Department is directed to release the buses to the petitioner solely for use in college activities. Mr. Srinivas is directed to convey this direction for immediate release of the vehicles bearing description (i) TN49 H 2846 Ashok Leyland, Semi–Saloon, MFT – 07/2001, No. of cylinders–6 Chassis No. WLE468941, (ii) TN28 M 2693, (iii) TN29 H 7117 and (iv) TN29 F 8788, to the petitioner forthwith.

20. It is specifically stated that this Court has not concerned itself with the merits of the issues pending resolution before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will proceed to hear the miscellaneous applications and the stay petitions, unfettered and in accordance with law.

21. These writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed with no order as to costs.