9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 57 - HC - Income TaxStay petition - Pre- deposit - HELD THAT - Admittedly it is the case of the petitioner that the stay application filed for seeking of the stay of the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the third respondent has already been returned on the ground that the petitioner will have to pay 20% of the disputed tax amount. In such circumstances there is merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. This Court directs the second respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner on 08.01.2020 aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the third respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in the said proceedings on merits and in accordance with law.
Issues:
Mandamus seeking direction for disposal of petitioner's appeal within a fixed time frame. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of their appeal filed on 08.01.2020 concerning an assessment order passed by the third respondent on 21.12.2019. The petitioner also filed a stay application related to the assessment order, which was returned by the first respondent requiring payment of 20% of the disputed demand. The petitioner contended that such payment was unnecessary and sought early disposal of the appeal. The Court noted that the relief sought was innocuous and directed the second respondent to expedite the disposal of the statutory appeal, considering the petitioner's grievance regarding the stay application's requirement for payment. The Court emphasized affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in the proceedings and complying with the law. Conclusion: The High Court of Madras, through Justice Abdul Quddhose, allowed the writ petition, directing the second respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court highlighted the merit in the petitioner's grievance regarding the stay application's payment requirement and emphasized conducting the proceedings in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed following the direction provided for the disposal of the appeal.
|
