ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Department. 2. This writ petition relates to the vires of Section 44AC and 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Various writ petitions are pending in this court as well as few matters are also pending before the Supreme Court of India. We, therefore, direct that this writ petition should await the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. Sharan appearing for the Department will communicate the decision of the Supreme Court as soon as the judgment is delivered. It will be open to the parties to mention the case soon after the decision of the Supreme Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prays for stay of the deductions pursuant to insertion of section 44 AC and 206C of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1988. This question directly came up for decision before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, where while refusing interim relief in the case of R. Laxmichand Co. & others vs. Union of India & others, (1990 Income Tax Reports Volume 184) page 276, their Lordships held as follows:– "Now the principal question, should the petitioners be granted interim relief by which the respondents and particularly respondent No. 4 should be restrained from deducting tax as provided under the provisions of Section 44AC and 206C of the Act? In short, the effect of the interim relief played for would be to stay the operation and implementation of the aforesaid provisions of Law. Simply because a petition is filed and the vires of certain provisions of the statue is challenged, the petitioners are not entitled to interim relief which would virtually amount to repeal of the statutory provisions. It must be noted that a provision of law is presumed to be constitutionally valid unless otherwise proved. Simply because an arguable point is raised and the petition is admitted, the presumption of constitutionality of the statutory provisions does not stand displaced." Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Chandan Nagar vs. Dunlop India Ltd. & others (1985 Income-tax Reports, Page 172, volume 154) where their Lordships have strongly deprecated the stay of realisation of the revenue merely because a constitutional question has been raised. Their Lordships observed:– "The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged." If it is held that the amount collected by the Department is more than the liability of the petitioner is certainly entitled to refund of the amount with interest under the provisions of the Income-tax Act itself. We therefore, do not think that the petitioner deserves grant of any interim relief. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to an order passed by the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC Nos. 1313 and 1314 of 1991 (R) on 10.7.1991 where their Lordships have observed:– "In that view of the matter, no coercive steps shall be taken for deducting Income tax from the petitioners by the sellers. From the aforesaid order, it does not appear that the attention of the Court was drawn to the aforesaid two decisions referred to above. There is no consideration of the provision of refund with interest under the Income-tax Act in the aforesaid order. In that view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled to interim relief in this case. 5. A copy of this order be given to the junior counsel to Mr. Sharan.