2019 (7) TMI 386 - HC - Income Tax

Grant of stay - stay on recovery - HELD THAT - The reasons given by the 2nd respondent for refusing the prayer for stay and touch the merits of the appeal. Thus, the petition for stay is not given due consideration while disposing of interlocutory applications. The appeals in Exts. P5 and P9 since are pending and to balance the claims of assessee on one hand and the revenue on another hand and also to ensure timely disposal of the appeals the writ petition is disposed of by this order - (a) there shall be stay of recovery of amount demanded for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 subject to the petitioner depositing 20 % of the tax demanded i. e, ₹ 1,12,81,740/- within four weeks from today. In default of complying with the condition the stay granted by this order ceases to be effective. (b) for the assessment year 2014-2015, the petitioner has paid 20% of the tax demanded therefore by granting stay of further recovery of the tax demanded for the assessment year 2014-2015, the appeal is directed to be disposed of. (c) the appeals in Exts. P5 and P9, hence are disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from today.

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders refusing to grant stay pending appeal.
2. Lack of reasons recorded for denying the relief of stay of recovery pending appeals.
3. Arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the 2nd respondent.
4. Prayers for stay of recovery pending appeals.
5. Balance between the claims of assessee and revenue for timely disposal of appeals.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the orders refusing to grant stay pending appeal, claiming them to be completely illegal as they lacked reasons for denying the relief of stay of recovery pending appeals. The appeals in question, Exts. P5 and P9, were filed against Assessment Orders for the years 2011-2012 and 2014-2015, respectively. The impugned orders, particularly Ext. P6, were criticized for not providing sufficient grounds for granting stay pending appeal.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reasons given in Ext. P6 reflected an arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the 2nd respondent. It was contended that substantial grounds existed in the appeals against the assessment orders, justifying the need for stay pending appeal. In the case of the assessment year 2014-2015 (Ext. P5), the petitioner had already deposited 20% of the tax demanded, making a strong case for granting stay of recovery pending appeal.

3. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the respondents defended the orders, stating that the assessment was conducted following applicable provisions, and the appellate authority was satisfied that no case warranted granting a stay. The Standing Counsel argued that the jurisdiction was rightly exercised in declining the stay, and the writ petition should be dismissed. However, as an alternative, it was suggested that if the petitioner could deposit 20% of the tax demanded, the court could consider granting a stay of recovery pending appeals.

4. The High Court, in its judgment, acknowledged that the reasons provided by the 2nd respondent for refusing the prayer for stay touched upon the merits of the appeal. To balance the interests of the assessee and the revenue, and to ensure timely disposal of the appeals, the Court issued the following directives:
- Stay of recovery for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 was granted upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the tax demanded within four weeks.
- For the assessment year 2014-2015, where the petitioner had already paid 20% of the tax demanded, further recovery was stayed, and the appeal was directed to be disposed of promptly.
- Both appeals (Exts. P5 and P9) were ordered to be expedited, with a preference for disposal within three months from the date of the judgment.

← Previous Next →