Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1338 - HC - Income TaxRecovery proceedings - stay petition - delay in filing appeal - Held that - In response to the submissions made by the petitioner s counsel, the Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner filed the appeal beyond the date this Court allowed in Ext.P6. He has also submitted that the petitioner merely wants to stay of all further proceedings, but never pressed for disposal of the stay petition as a relief, in this writ petition. I reckon there is a couple of days delay in the petitioner s filing an appeal. That may not be fatal. More particularly, the petitioner asserts that it received the certified copy a little late. At any rate, the petitioner s stay petition has been pending for more than one year. Unless, the appellate authority considers it, the petitioner s very appeal may become a mere ritual.Thus reckon the Tribunal will consider the petitioner s stay application, expeditiously. Until it considers that application, the department shall defer all coercive steps. Because of this arrangement, the garnishee order the department served on the 6th respondent stands vacated.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner. 2. Non-consideration of the stay petition by the 4th respondent. 3. Initiation of coercive steps by the Department to recover amounts covered by Ext.P1 and P3. 4. Petitioner's request for stay of further proceedings. 5. Delay in consideration of the petitioner's stay petition. 6. Potential impact on the appeal if the stay petition is not considered promptly. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, an assessee, challenged the Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P3 penalty order. Initially, the petitioner approached the High Court, which directed the petitioner to appeal to the appropriate forum. Despite the deadline for filing the appeal being missed by a couple of days, the Court acknowledged the delay due to late receipt of the judgment copy. 2. The petitioner filed a stay petition on 12.09.2017, which the 4th respondent did not consider. Meanwhile, the Department started coercive measures to recover the amounts in question, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking relief. 3. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued for a stay of proceedings, while the Standing Counsel highlighted the delay in filing the appeal beyond the Court's permitted timeline. The petitioner did not specifically press for the disposal of the stay petition as a relief in the writ petition. 4. The Court recognized the delay in filing the appeal as not fatal, especially considering the circumstances of delayed receipt of the certified copy. However, the pending stay petition for over a year raised concerns about the appeal becoming a mere formality without prompt consideration. 5. To address the situation, the Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the consideration of the petitioner's stay application. Until the stay application is reviewed, the Department was instructed to halt all coercive actions, leading to the vacation of the garnishee order served on the 6th respondent. 6. The judgment concluded with the Court disposing of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to promptly address the stay application to ensure the appeal's substantive consideration and prevent it from becoming a mere procedural step.
|