2019 (1) TMI 1760 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - petitioner point out that the petitioner has not raised some of the relevant grounds in the appellate memorandum and permission may be granted to ensure that additional memorandum of grounds is filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the appeals filed as per Exts.P7 and P9 - HELD THAT - Petitioner may file additional memorandum of grounds in support of their Exts.P7 and P9 appeals as well as Exts.P8 and P10 stay applications, which the petitioner may appropriately file before the 2nd respondent appellate authority without much delay preferably within a period of ten days from the date notified for receiving a certified copy of this judgment. Additional memorandum of grounds is duly filed by the petitioner as aforestated, then the 2nd respondent appellate authority shall treat those additional grounds as part and continuation of the appeals and stay applications as already filed. 2nd respondent may afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on the matters raised in Exts.P8 and P10 stay applications and orders may be passed on those stay applications without much delay preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the aforestated additional memorandum of grounds. It is only for the purpose of preservation of the subject matter of the lis, it is ordered that until orders are passed on Exts.P8 and P10 stay applications as aforedirected, further coercive steps for enforcing the impugned order may be kept in abeyance. Aforesaid directions have been issued by this Court only for the purpose of preservation of the subject matter of the list and shall not be construed in any manner as an opinion on the part of this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals on technical grounds
2. Breathing time to clear defects in appeals
3. Remittal of appeals for fresh consideration
4. Permission to file additional memorandum of grounds
5. Directions for further proceedings and stay applications

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of their appeals on technical grounds of defects and limitations. The petitioner argued that such dismissals do not serve the interest of justice, citing legal precedents. The court acknowledged the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity to rectify defects before dismissing appeals, ensuring justice is not compromised.

2. The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, decided to intervene to allow the appeals and stay applications to be reconsidered on their merits. The rejection orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the appellate authority for a fresh decision. The petitioner was granted permission to file an additional memorandum of grounds to address relevant issues not previously raised in the appeals.

3. The court directed the petitioner to submit the additional memorandum of grounds promptly, within ten days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The appellate authority was instructed to consider the additional grounds as part of the existing appeals and stay applications. The authority was further directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard and make decisions on the stay applications within six weeks of filing the additional memorandum.

4. To ensure the preservation of the subject matter under dispute, the court ordered a halt on coercive measures to enforce the impugned order until a decision was made on the stay applications. It clarified that these directions were solely for the purpose of maintaining the status quo and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, which falls within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority.

5. The court concluded the judgment by disposing of the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following due process and affording parties a fair opportunity to present their case before a decision is made.