2019 (2) TMI 997 - HC - Income Tax

Granting interim stay subject to satisfaction of 20% of the liability fixed as per the order under challenge - Held that - This Court does not find anything wrong or objectionable with regard to the course pursued by the learned single Judge. No tenable ground is brought out to call for interference of the Division Bench with regard to the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge as above. In the said circumstance, interference is declined. The appeal is dismissed. As the appellant however seeks for a short time to comply with the condition imposed as per Ext.P4. Since the time has already run out, we find it appropriate to grant one more week s time to comply with the direction in Ext.P4. If the condition is satisfied within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the appellant will continue to enjoy the benefit of Ext.P4 order throughout the pendency of the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Interference with condition imposed by appellate authority during interim stay

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Kerala pertains to the challenge against the decision of the learned single Judge regarding the condition imposed by the appellate authority during the grant of interim stay. The appellant challenged the condition set in Ext.P4 order, which required satisfaction of 20% of the liability fixed as per the order under challenge. The sequence of events leading to this challenge involved the appellant being aggrieved by the assessment order (Ext.P1), filing an appeal (Ext.P2), and seeking to halt coercive proceedings through a stay petition (Ext.P3). The 3rd respondent granted an interim stay through Ext.P4 order, subject to the mentioned condition. The appellant filed a writ petition against this condition, but the learned single Judge declined interference, leading to the current appeal.

Upon hearing arguments from the appellant's counsel and the Government Pleader, the High Court found no fault with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. The Court determined that there were no valid grounds to warrant interference by the Division Bench regarding the decision made by the single Judge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the lower court. However, the appellant's counsel requested additional time to comply with the condition imposed by Ext.P4. The Court granted an extension of one week for compliance, stipulating that if the condition was met within this timeframe, the appellant would retain the benefit of the interim stay throughout the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment maintained the decision of the learned single Judge regarding the condition imposed by the appellate authority during the interim stay. The Court found no justifiable reason to overturn the lower court's discretion and dismissed the appeal. Nonetheless, a one-week extension was granted for the appellant to fulfill the condition set in Ext.P4, with the provision that compliance within this period would enable the appellant to continue benefiting from the interim stay during the appeal process.