9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 876 - HC - Income TaxRejection of stay application - rejection order shows that it is solely based on CBDT OMs - HELD THAT - Apex Court had an occasion to consider this aspect in M/s.LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., 2018 (7) TMI 1905 - SC ORDER and this Court in APR Jewellers Private Limited 2022 (5) TMI 1067 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT and M/s.Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana 2023 (10) TMI 1139 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT considered that the Courts opined that 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. The petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority on 13.01.2025. The appellate authority shall decide the stay application afresh, in accordance with law, within 15 days therefrom.
The Telangana High Court, comprising Honourable Sri Justice Sujoy Paul and Honourable Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, addressed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a stay application by respondent No. 1, dated 17.12.2024. The petitioner, represented by M. Naga Deepak, argued that the rejection was solely based on CBDT Office Memorandums from 2016 and 2017, without independent consideration by the quasi-judicial authority, as mandated by precedents such as *Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.* [2018 (7) TMI 1905] and other relevant cases.
The court noted that the respondent's counsel had no objection to the petitioner's request to reassess the stay application. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the stay application was revived. The petitioner is instructed to appear before the appellate authority on 13.01.2025, and the authority is directed to decide the application afresh within 15 days, in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of without addressing the merits, and no costs were ordered. Pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
|
