9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Stay petition dismissed as not pressed for disposal due to delayed hearing and unjust treatment by the Registry.
Issue 1: Delay in hearing the stay petition The judgment highlights a significant delay in the hearing of the stay petition filed by the assessee. The stay application was filed on 3rd Sept., 1996, after the expiry of 25 months from the date of filing the stay petition. Despite the application being filed well in advance, the petition was not heard promptly, causing undue delay and inconvenience to the assessee. The delay of 25 months until the final hearing on 27th July, 1998, was attributed to the Registry officials not listing and hearing the petition promptly. This delay was deemed unjust and unacceptable, leading to a situation where the purpose of obtaining a stay to prevent coercive action was frustrated. Issue 2: Unjust treatment by the Registry The judgment also addresses the unjust treatment meted out to the assessee by the Registry officials. The Registry's actions, including not promptly placing the stay petition before the concerned Bench for hearing and order, were criticized for exceeding their authority. The Registry's insistence on filing a copy of the rejection order from the Director of IT (Exemptions) for the stay application was deemed legally unnecessary and an error in judgment. The judgment emphasized that the power to grant a stay of recovery lies with the Tribunal when an appeal is pending, as established in legal precedents. The Registry's actions were seen as frustrating the purpose of the stay application before the Tribunal, leading to further complications and unnecessary delays in the legal process. Issue 3: Legal position on granting stay of demand The judgment delves into the legal position regarding the grant of a stay of demand when an appeal is pending before the Tribunal. It highlights that neither the assessing authority nor any other administrative authority of the IT Department has the power to grant a stay of collection/recovery of the disputed demand when an appeal is pending before the Tribunal under the IT Act. The Tribunal possesses inherent and ancillary powers, along with its appellate jurisdiction, to grant a stay in such cases. Legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions in cases like CIT vs. Bansi Dhar & Sons and ITO vs. M.K. Mohd. Kunhi, have clarified that the power to grant a stay of recovery lies with the Tribunal during the pendency of an appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to these legal principles and ensuring that the Tribunal's authority is respected in matters concerning the stay of demand during pending appeals. In conclusion, the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras-D addresses the issues of delayed hearing of a stay petition, unjust treatment by Registry officials, and the legal position on granting a stay of demand during pending appeals. The judgment emphasizes the need for timely and fair consideration of stay applications, adherence to legal precedents, and the Tribunal's authority in granting stays to prevent coercive actions by the Revenue authorities.
|
