9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 307 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - Held that - Justice would be met if writ petition is disposed of by directing the First Appellate Authority(3rd respondent)to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 27.04.2016 on merits and in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to pay ₹ 5,00,000/- per month till the disposal of the appeal as ordered by this Court. Hence the following order The petition stands disposed of. The First Appellate Authority(3rd respondent) is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 24.07.2016 as per Annexure -E on merits and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall pay ₹ 5,00,000/- per month till the disposal of the appeal regularly in terms of the interim order granted by this Court on 11.05.2016. This arrangement is subject to final result of the appeal pending before the First Appellate Authority(3rd respondent). Petitioner shall extend co-operation with the First Appellate Authority(3rd respondent) in order to enable the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within the time stipulated herein above.
Issues:
1. Stay order issued by the first respondent for AY 2012-13. 2. Letter issued by the second respondent to the Director of Mines and Geology for AY 2012-13. 3. Notices issued by the second respondent to various banks for AY 2012-13. 4. Coercive steps towards recovery of disputed tax. 5. Timely disposal of appeal by the third respondent. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, an income tax assessee, challenged the assessment order made by the second respondent which demanded a substantial tax amount. The petitioner appealed to the First Appellate Authority against this order. Seeking a stay on the operation and execution of the assessment order during the appeal process, the petitioner approached the first respondent. The first respondent granted a stay subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the demanded tax in installments. As the petitioner faced difficulties complying with these conditions, a writ petition was filed requesting relief. The High Court granted a stay with modified payment terms. 2. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been adhering to the payment terms set by the High Court and requested the disposal of the writ petition by directing the First Appellate Authority to expedite the appeal process. The standing counsel for the respondents acknowledged the substantial tax liability but agreed to continue the payment arrangement set by the High Court until the appeal is resolved. Cooperation with the First Appellate Authority was also emphasized. 3. The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's appeal and the stay granted on payment terms. It directed the First Appellate Authority to expedite the appeal process within a specified timeframe, with the petitioner continuing to pay the modified monthly amount as ordered by the High Court. The cooperation of the petitioner with the appellate authority was mandated for the timely resolution of the appeal. The order disposed of the writ petition and outlined the obligations of both parties regarding the appeal process and payment terms. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment comprehensively, outlining the legal proceedings and decisions made by the High Court in response to the petitioner's challenges regarding the tax assessment order and stay conditions.
|
