9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Addition of interest on sticky loans and advances in the appeal by a bank. 2. Requirement of clearance from the Committee as per the Supreme Court's directive. 3. Extension of stay granted in the appeal to protect the bank from recovery proceedings. 4. Consideration of further stay of demand by the Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal by a bank against the addition of interest on sticky loans and advances. The Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's order in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission, emphasizing the directive for disputes between Government entities to be resolved without litigation. The Tribunal noted that as a bank under the Government of India, the appeal cannot proceed without clearance from the Committee as per the Supreme Court's directive. The appeal was blocked for three months to allow parties to obtain the necessary clearance. The bank's counsel requested an extension of the stay granted to prevent jeopardy, citing a favorable precedent from a previous Tribunal decision. However, the Tribunal decided against extending the stay, emphasizing the need to respect the Supreme Court's directive and the Government's instructions to resolve disputes amicably. Regarding the demand for further stay of the demand, the Tribunal reiterated the importance of obtaining clearance from the Committee before proceeding with the appeal. It emphasized that the primary duty lies with the litigant parties to settle disputes in line with the Government's instructions and the Supreme Court's directives. The Tribunal highlighted that any coercive action by the Income-tax Department for recovery should be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's order and the Tribunal's previous decision regarding interest on sticky loans. Despite the readiness of both parties to argue the case, the Tribunal could not proceed without the required clearance from the Committee, leading to the stay being vacated and the appeal being blocked for three months.
|
