2025:UHC:4150-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J SPECIAL APPEAL No.89 of 2025 M/s Kanohar Electricals Ltd. …Appellant Versus Union of India & others …Respondents Counsel for the appellant Union of India/1 Counsel for respondent no.2 Counsel for respondent no.4 Counsel for respondent no.5 : Mr. Kirti Sharan Agarwal, learned counsel. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : (PER HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2239 of 2022. The impugned order is extracted below for ready reference:- “10. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that respondent no. 5 - Bank has withheld the amount of tax though there is no interim order. In such view of the matter, let the amount of tax pursuant to the notice dated 30.12.2021 (Annexure No. 6) be remitted by the Bank – respondent no. 5 to the Tax Recovery Officer – respondent no. 2 within a week. It is made clear that the remittance of the said amount of tax shall be subject to the outcome of writ petition.” 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was not liable to pay any amount to Income Tax Department. However, Income Tax 1 2025:UHC:4150-DB Department has recovered the entire amount lying with PTCUL. 3. Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the issue whether the appellant is liable to pay anything to Income Tax Department or not is to be decided in writ petition, and order impugned is only an interim arrangement. Thus, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that in view of provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule V of Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, this special appeal is not maintainable. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for respondent no.2, on two judgments rendered by this Court in Special Appeal No.231 of 2024 and Special Appeal No.337 of 2024. 4. We find substance in the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent. Since the order impugned is only interim in nature, therefore, the intra court appeal against the interim order is not maintainable. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal with liberty to appellant to make request before the learned Single Judge for early hearing. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:20th May, 2025 NR/ 2