9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the outstanding demand. 2. Applicability of Instruction No. 96 dated August 21, 1969, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Summary: 1. Legality of the Tribunal's Order: The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order dated March 18, 1996, which directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the outstanding demand under the Estate Duty Act and the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1990-91 and 1992-93. The Tribunal had stayed the recovery of the remaining 75% of the impugned tax until the disposal of the appeals. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal did not judiciously apply its mind to the relevant laws and facts, particularly the financial status and hardship faced by the petitioner due to a court order dated June 11, 1993, which restrained the petitioner from disposing of or alienating the properties. The court found that the Tribunal's order was arbitrary and lacked proper reasoning, especially since the properties were under the control of the District Court and the petitioner had no liquid cash to pay the tax. The court held that the Tribunal should have stayed the entire recovery of the impugned tax until the appeals were decided. 2. Applicability of Instruction No. 96: The petitioner contended that Instruction No. 96, issued by the CBDT, mandated that where the income determined on assessment was substantially higher than the returned income, the collection of the tax in dispute should be held in abeyance until the decision of the appeals. The court examined various judgments, including those from the Kerala High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the Supreme Court, which established that such instructions are binding on the authorities exercising powers under the taxing statutes. The court concluded that Instruction No. 96 was applicable in this case, as the income determined was significantly higher than the returned income. The court criticized the Tribunal for not considering this instruction and the relevant judgments cited by the petitioner. Conclusion: The court directed that the recovery of the entire impugned tax should remain stayed until the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal. The petitioner was not required to deposit 25% of the impugned tax. The court emphasized that the interest of the Revenue was fully secured due to the existing court order and directed the Tribunal to expedite the hearing and final disposal of the appeals. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with these directions.
|
