JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On 28th August, 2009, the District Certificate Officer imposed the penalty equal to twice the amount of tax payable, amounting to Rs. 26,26,642.24 under the provisions of Section 20(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act. The said penalty order was challenged before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (appeals) and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 2nd August, 2002 and then matter went up to the Tribunal and Tribunal confirmed the penalty vide order dated 26th June, 2008. On 23rd March, 2010 the Tribunal declined to refer the questions of law as raised by the petitioner to this Court for the High Court's opinion. According to the petitioner, he submitted a petition seeking direction against the Tribunal to refer the questions of law as proposed by the petitioner and that petition is pending. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Bansi Dhar & Sons reported in 1986 ITR (157) page 665 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in reference, High Court has jurisdiction only of advisory nature and no power to grant stay of realization of tax or to grant injunction vests in the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, held that the writ petition is maintainable. Hence petitioner is seeking injunction against the recovery as initiated by issuing demand notice (Annexure4). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the levy of the penalty upon the petition to the extent of double the tax amount, in the facts of the case, is absolutely illegal and contrary to the settled law. It is further submitted that penalty is not a natural consequence of nonpayment or deficit payment of tax but penalty can be imposed when there is willful and deliberate act of an assessee in the matter of avoiding tax by committing any wrong. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the said issue is pending before the reference court i.e. before this very Court in reference proceeding and that question can be answered in reference and not in the writ petition. 6. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the said issue is pending before the reference court i.e. before this very Court in reference proceeding and that question can be answered in reference and not in the writ petition. 6. The facts which are not in dispute are that the penalty order was passed originally on 28.08.1999 and upheld by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) on 2nd August, 2002 and it has been confirmed by the Tribunal on 26th June, 2008 and the Tribunal refused to refer the questions of law to the High Court on 23rd March, 2010. The petitioner is seeking only injunction against the recovery in pursuance of demand notice (Annexure4) issued in view of above three decisions against the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, this Court has no jurisdiction to look into the validity of the orders dated 28th August, 1999, 2nd August, 2002, 26th June, 2008 and 23rd March, 2010 and in in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Bansi Dhar & Sons (Supra), the Appellate Tribunal itself retains the jurisdiction to stay the realization of tax and to grant injunction against the recovery of tax or penalty amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that pendency of reference does not detract from that jurisdiction of Tribunal. Meaning thereby the jurisdiction to grant injunction during the pendency of the reference vests with the Appellate Tribunal and that legal position is not in dispute. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this petition, has not challenged any order rejecting petitioner's any prayer for injunction nor has annexed any order of rejection passed by the Tribunal on injunction. The petitioner, without challenging order of rejection on injunction has straightway preferred to challenge the Annexure4 which is only a demand notice. Learned counsel though has not placed on record copy of order of rejection, submitted that petitioner's such prayer was rejected. If it is true then the petitioner should have challenged that order and without challenging that order, the petitioner cannot challenge only the demand notice (Annexure4). 9. In view of the above reasons, we do not find the petitioner having any merit. Hence the petition is dismissed.