9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 538 - HC - Income TaxStay petition filed by the petitioner by granting stay of 80% of the demand only subject to a condition that 20% of the total demand has to be paid by the petitioner immediately - Held that - While disposing the stay petition on 27.06.2018, the order impugned in this writ petition, has not even referred to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, where a specific direction was issued to the first respondent to hear the stay petition on merits and take a decision in accordance with law, also by observing that the first respondent has to consider a prima-facie case which the petitioner would place before him. On the other hand, he has simply disposed the stay petition without there being any discussion much less expressing a prima-facie view as to why 20% of the total demand is directed to be paid by the petitioner, while granting stay for the balance demand. This Court is satisfied to set aside the order passed by the first respondent impugned in this writ petition and remit the matter back to the first respondent for passing an order afresh, as directed by this Court 2018 (4) TMI 609 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . This Court makes it clear that it is not expressing any view on the merits of the contentions made by the writ petitioner either in respect of the merits of the assessment or in respect of the stay petition, as it is for the first respondent/Appellate Authority to consider the same and decide. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing a fresh order on the stay petition.
Issues:
1. Disposal of stay petition by first respondent/Appellate Authority. 2. Direction to pay 20% of disputed demand. 3. Challenge to the order dated 07.02.2018. 4. Failure to consider the order passed by the Court. 5. Lack of prima facie view in the impugned order. 6. Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a company, challenged the order of the first respondent/Appellate Authority dated 27.06.2018, which granted stay of 80% of the demand with a condition to pay 20% immediately. The petitioner had earlier filed a stay petition for Assessment Year 2011-12, requesting to keep the outstanding demands in abeyance until the appeal was disposed of. A writ petition was filed in response to the order dated 07.02.2018, directing payment of 20% of the disputed demand, which was kept in abeyance for four weeks to enable the petitioner to file a stay petition before the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent passed the impugned order on 27.06.2018. 2. The petitioner contended that the first respondent did not consider the Court's order directing to consider the prima facie case and decide on merits and in accordance with the law in the stay petition. The respondents argued that since the first respondent directed payment of only 20% of the total demand, the order did not require interference. 3. The Court noted that the first respondent failed to refer to the Court's earlier order while disposing of the stay petition. The first respondent did not express a prima facie view on why 20% of the total demand was to be paid by the petitioner, raising concerns about the application of mind in the decision-making process. 4. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision in line with the Court's earlier directive. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the assessment or the stay petition, leaving it to the first respondent/Appellate Authority to consider and decide accordingly. 5. The Court directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner until a fresh order was passed by the first respondent as per the Court's directive. The writ petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, emphasizing the need for a proper consideration of the petitioner's case by the first respondent/Appellate Authority within a specified timeframe.
|
