9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with conditions of the stay order. 2. Requirement of hearing before revoking the stay. 3. Automatic revocation of stay due to non-compliance. 4. Legal requirement for a separate order to revoke the stay. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Conditions of the Stay Order: The assessee filed a stay petition on 11-11-1993 for a total demand of Rs. 14,98,395 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1987-88. The Tribunal, on 19-11-1993, directed the assessee to pay Rs. 2,98,395 within 30 days and furnish security for the balance Rs. 12 lakhs. The assessee claimed compliance with the conditions through letters dated 23-2-1994 and 6-4-1994. However, there was no proof of payment of Rs. 2,98,395, leading to the Tribunal's decision to withdraw the stay on 11-5-1994 due to non-compliance. 2. Requirement of Hearing Before Revoking the Stay: The Accountant Member disagreed with the Judicial Member's decision to withdraw the stay without a hearing. He emphasized that natural justice requires an opportunity for the assessee to be heard before revoking the stay, citing the principle of "audi alteram partem" (hearing the other side). He referenced the Supreme Court's decision in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, asserting that no order modifying or canceling the stay should be passed without a hearing. 3. Automatic Revocation of Stay Due to Non-compliance: The Judicial Member argued that the stay automatically became ineffective due to the assessee's non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions. He noted that the assessee did not make the required part payment or provide satisfactory security. The lien on the provident fund account offered by the assessee was deemed insufficient as per legal provisions. 4. Legal Requirement for a Separate Order to Revoke the Stay: The Judicial Member contended that no separate legal order was necessary to vacate the stay, as the non-compliance by the assessee automatically rendered the stay ineffective. However, the Third Member concluded that a hearing was required as per law before revoking the stay, agreeing with the Accountant Member's view on the necessity of observing natural justice principles. Third Member's Opinion: The Third Member was tasked with resolving the differences between the Judicial and Accountant Members. He concluded that a hearing was indeed required before revoking the stay, aligning with the Accountant Member's view. He found that the Tribunal had not given the assessee an opportunity to be heard on the proposed withdrawal of the stay, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Final Decision: In conformity with the majority view, the issue of revocation or continuation of the stay granted on 19-11-1993 was to be fixed for hearing in the open court on any Friday, ensuring the assessee had an opportunity to be heard.
|
