9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observing that the first respondent has to consider a prima-facie case which the petitioner would place before him. On the other hand, he has simply disposed the stay petition without there being any discussion much less expressing a prima-facie view as to why 20% of the total demand is directed to be paid by the petitioner, while granting stay for the balance demand. This Court is satisfied to set aside the order passed by the first respondent impugned in this writ petition and remit the matter back to the first respondent for passing an order afresh, as directed by this Court [2018 (4) TMI 609 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. This Court makes it clear that it is not expressing any view on the merits of the contentions made by the writ petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s informed, that the stay petition would be treated as deemed to have been rejected. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3338 of 2018. After hearing both sides, the Writ Court disposed the writ petition on 04.04.2018, by observing that the petitioner has to approach the first respondent/Appellate Authority by way of stay petition and if the stay petition is moved, the first respondent has to consider the prima facie case which the petitioner would place before the Authority and to take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. Thus, the Writ Court kept the said order dated 07.02.2018 in abeyance for a period of four weeks so as to enable the petitioner to file a stay petition b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2018, after hearing both sides. Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said order read as follows: 10.Thus, in my considered view, this is a fit case, where the petitioner has to approach the first respondent by way of a stay petition. This so because, according to the assessee, identical issue is pending in appeals for the earlier assessment years and those appeals are pending before the first respondent at various stages. However, the petitioner has not prayed for any stay in those appeals, because taxes have been remitted without prejudice. Thus, the petitioner has to necessarily move the first respondent by way of a stay petition, and if such petition is moved, then it is open to the first respondent to consider the prima facie case wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranting stay for the balance demand. 8.Therefore, it is apparent that the first respondent, apart from not following the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3338 of 2018, appears to have not applied his mind while disposing the stay petition in the absence of any prima facie view expressed therein. Therefore, this Court is satisfied to set aside the order passed by the first respondent impugned in this writ petition and remit the matter back to the first respondent for passing an order afresh, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.33338 of 2018 dated 04.04.2018. This Court makes it clear that it is not expressing any view on the merits of the contentions made by the writ petitioner either in respect of the merits of the assessment or in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
