2011 (2) TMI 355 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of collection of demand - petitioner directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25 crores, in respect of the tax demand of Rs.71,97,22,210/- under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax, 1961 - Pre-deposit of balance amount waived.

Summary

Issues:

1. Challenge to the impugned order of the fifth respondent directing payment of tax demand.
2. Request for stay of tax collection and interest for the assessment year 2008-09.
3. Disallowance of a specific sum under the Tamilnadu Indian made Foreign Spirit Rules, 1983.
4. Claim of enhanced Special Privilege Fee rates as an allowable deduction.
5. Consideration of various other grounds raised by the petitioner.
6. Protection of interest of respondents due to substantial public revenue involved.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order of the fifth respondent directing the payment of 50% of the tax demand, claiming it to be arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner argued that the fifth respondent erred in disallowing a significant sum under the Tamilnadu Indian made Foreign Spirit Rules, 1983. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the first respondent incorrectly held that the enhanced Special Privilege Fee rates were not allowable deductions as claimed in the Profit & Loss Account on a mercantile system basis. Various other grounds were also raised by the petitioner in this regard.

2. The respondents, through their counsel, requested the court to pass an appropriate order to protect their interests, highlighting the substantial public revenue involved in the matter. The court considered the submissions made by both parties and directed the petitioner to pay a specific sum within a stipulated time frame in relation to the tax demand, as per the impugned order of the fifth respondent. The court also instructed the third respondent to consider the appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with the law within a specified period after the payment was made.

3. The court's decision to direct the petitioner to pay a specific amount towards the tax demand and the subsequent instructions to the third respondent regarding the appeal's consideration and disposal aimed to balance the interests of both parties involved. By providing a structured timeline for the resolution of the appeal, the court ensured a fair and timely adjudication of the matter. The judgment reflected a nuanced approach considering the legal arguments presented by the petitioner and the respondents, ultimately leading to the disposal of the writ petition with the specified directions and without any costs imposed.

4. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren, JJ., in the High Court of Madras, meticulously addressed the issues raised by the parties regarding the tax demand, stay of collection, disallowance of specific sums, and the interpretation of applicable rules. The court's decision underscored the importance of upholding legal principles while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved, especially in cases concerning substantial public revenue. The detailed analysis and directions provided in the judgment exemplified a judicious approach to resolving complex legal disputes within the framework of established laws and regulations.