9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 291 - HC - Income TaxStay petition Revenue contended that petitioner is liable to pay 50% of the demand, for an order of stay to be granted Held that - Court finds it fit to direct the first respondent to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits, on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.15 lacs, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of stay petition by the second respondent without addressing the grounds raised by the petitioner. 2. Contention regarding pre-deposit for granting stay pending appeal. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their stay petition by the second respondent, arguing that the reasons provided in the impugned order did not address any of the grounds raised in the petition. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and requested the first respondent to dispose of the appeal without requiring any pre-deposit. The court noted the petitioner's argument and directed the first respondent to hear the appeal and make a decision based on merit and law. The court ordered the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000 within four weeks to proceed with the appeal. 2. The respondents contended that the petitioner should pay 50% of the tax amount demanded for a stay to be granted pending the appeal. However, the court found it appropriate to order the petitioner to deposit a specific sum within a specified period instead of the suggested 50% of the tax amount. The court's decision was based on a thorough review of submissions from both parties and examination of available records. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, through the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren, directed the first respondent to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner and make a decision based on merit and law. The court ordered the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000 within four weeks to proceed with the appeal, contrary to the contention of the respondents regarding the pre-deposit amount. The writ petition was granted accordingly, with no costs awarded, and the connected motions were closed.
|
