9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 483 - HC - Income TaxAppeal against the Stay of demand by the tribunal - recovery - held that - The above order was passed on 14.02.2013 and the department could wait from 14.02.2013 till today, therefore, the element of urgency has been allowed to be diluted by the department itself. If I grant any interim stay of the impugned order that amounts to deciding the writ petition finally without giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent. That is not possible in any sense. Tribunal directed to complete the hearing on 2nd April, 2013, if possible. If not possible then day to day hearing is to be taken and the matter should be decided at an early date.
Issues:
- Stay of recovery proceedings by the ITAT - Conditions imposed for granting stay - Urgency of the matter - Adherence to time schedule for hearing - Continuation of interim stay order - Binding nature of Tribunal's findings Stay of Recovery Proceedings by the ITAT: The High Court reviewed the impugned judgment and order of the ITAT granting stay of recovery proceedings. The Tribunal had granted stay on certain conditions, including staying the outstanding demand until the disposal of the appeal or six months, directing the department to defreeze the assessee's bank accounts, fixing the appeal hearing date, and prohibiting the transfer of assets by the assessee. The Court noted the detailed reasons provided by the Tribunal for granting the stay. Conditions Imposed for Granting Stay: The Court considered the conditions imposed by the ITAT for granting stay, particularly focusing on the protection of revenue. The counsel for the petitioner estimated the value of the respondent's assets to be around hundred crore, while the tax demand was Rs. 40 crore. The Court observed that the revenue was adequately protected for the time being based on this assessment. Urgency of the Matter: The Court addressed the element of urgency in the matter, noting that the department had allowed time to pass from the date of the impugned order to the present. The Court emphasized the importance of not granting interim stay without giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard, as that would essentially decide the writ petition finally without due process. Adherence to Time Schedule for Hearing: The Court emphasized the need for adherence to the time schedule set by the Tribunal for hearing the appeal. It directed the Tribunal to complete the hearing by a specified date and urged for day-to-day hearings if necessary to ensure a timely resolution. The continuation of the interim stay order was also addressed, with a maximum period set for its validity. Continuation of Interim Stay Order: The Court specified that if the matter was not heard and disposed of finally within the set period, the parties could seek appropriate relief, subject to the Tribunal's consideration in accordance with the law. The Court highlighted the temporary nature of the findings and observations made by the Tribunal, indicating that they should not be considered binding at the time of final disposal. Binding Nature of Tribunal's Findings: The Court clarified that the findings and observations made by the Tribunal were not binding factors during the final disposal, as they were recorded at an interlocutory stage and were considered tentative in nature. The Court concluded the judgment without any order as to costs, providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the case.
|
