2024 (2) TMI 1510 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of stay application - rejection order shows that it is solely based on CBDT OMs - both the parties urge that the point involved in this matter is squarely covered by recent order passed IN GARDENIA VENTURES VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER 2025 (1) TMI 876 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT held respondent No.1 being a quasi judicial authority should apply its independent mind and shall not be bound by the administrative circulars. Prayer that the said rejection order may be set aside and respondent No.1 may be directed to decide the stay application afresh within the stipulated time accepted. Stay application is revived. HELD THAT - As per said order supra the impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored in the file of respondent No.1. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 on 10.02.2025 for which no separate notice will be required to be issued. Respondent No.1 shall decide the stay application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. It will be open for the petitioner to file another application for lifting of restrictions on the bank account.

Summary

In the case before the Telangana High Court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, the petitioner, represented by Sri Venkata Prasad P., sought relief against an order dated 21.11.2024. The order in question had denied the petitioner's stay application, allegedly relying solely on CBDT Office Memorandums from 2016 and 2017. The petitioner argued that such reliance was improper, as established in prior cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in *Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.* and other relevant High Court rulings. These cases emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must apply independent judgment and are not bound by administrative circulars.The Court, with the consent of both parties, decided to dispose of the current petition in line with a recent order in W.P.No.228 of 2025, which set aside a similar impugned order and directed a fresh decision on the stay application. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to respondent No.1 for reconsideration. The petitioner was instructed to appear before respondent No.1 on 10.02.2025. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an application to lift restrictions on the bank account and disposed of the writ petition without costs, also closing any pending interlocutory applications.