9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this stage, it would cause enormous inconvenience, harm and prejudice, not only to the petitioner but to the public in general. This important fact persuades us to grant stay in favour of the petitioner. We do not grant the stay, at this stage, merely because the petitioner has a arguable case. That is but one factor. The impugned order merely stated that the factors mentioned in the circular of the CBDT dated 02.12.1993 are absent. The CBDT circular only contains illustrative situations, as noted in the impugned order dated 09.07.2014 itself. It is certainly not exhaustive of the grounds on which a stay can be granted and the grounds which ought to be taken into consideration in an application for grant of stay. The impugned order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of the demand. 3. The petitioner is a Government of Punjab undertaking. It undertakes trade, purchase, storage movement including inter-state movement, distribution and sale of foodgrains and other food stuffs. The petitioner also engages itself in various other public utility services. For the purpose of this petition, it is necessary to note that the primary objects are for governing, procurement and supply of foodgrains within the State of Punjab on the behest of the State Government and in the interest of the farmers scattered over the different Districts within the State of Punjab and balancing the supply of the foodgrains in accordance with the policies made by the Food Corporation of India (for short, the 'FCI') at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not address the relevant questions while considering the application for stay. For instance, the question as to whether the petitioner has a prima facie case or not, has not been adverted to. We are unable to say that the petitioner has no case whatsoever, at this stage. Prima facie at least, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1999) 115 STC 148 although in relation to a sales tax matter held that there was nothing to show that the transfer of property in similar by-products was by way of sale. Whether this judgment is applicable or not, in the present case, is a matter for the CIT to consider. Suffice it to state for the purpose of these petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 12.03.2015 merely observes that despite various opportunities, the petitioner had failed to submit any proposal/schedule to pay the demand and that the petitioner has not furnished any reasonable cause for not paying the demand. An assessee not paying the demand or not agreeing to do so in instalment, would not be a ground for rejecting the grant of stay, if the assessee is entitled to the same. 8. In the exceptional facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a stay of the demand, pending the hearing and of the final disposal of the appeal. The impugned orders dated 09.07.2014 (Annexure P9), 25.09.2014 (Annexure P13) and 12.03.2015 (Annexure P18) are, therefore, set aside. No coercive steps shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
