9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been given as to why petitioner should pay a further amount of ₹ 20 crores against the outstanding demand of ₹ 269,96,26,079.00. The discretion exercised by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity to justify interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to invoke our writ jurisdiction. While declining to interfere in the matter, we are however of the view that Tribunal should expedite hearing of the appeals of the petitioner including the one pertaining to cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act. If the petitioner files application for early hearing, the same shall be duly considered by the Tribunal so that the appeals can be decided expeditiously. - WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 4696 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2021 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms. Ankita Vashistha i/by UBR Legal for the Petitioner Mr. Sham Walve for the Respondents P.C. (Per Ujjal Bhuyan, J.): Heard Mr. Bharat Raichandani learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax, Mumbai for stay of recovery of tax, interest, penalty etc for the assessment years under consideration. Regarding the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respondent No. 2 had stayed the demand of tax subject to payment of 10% of the demand. For the other two assessment years, the demand raised pursuant to the orders of assessment was confirmed by the first appellate authority i.e Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In those two appeals, stay of demand was granted by respondent No. 2 subject to payment of 20% of the demand or till decision of the Tribunal whichever was earlier. 9. First appellate authority rejected the two appeals of the petitioner for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 as well. Thus all the four appeals of the petitioner were rejected by the first appellate authority. 10. It may be mentioned that against the rejection of the appeals by the first appellate authority, petitioner preferred four appeals before the Tribunal pertaining to the four assessment years being Income Tax Appeal No. 1806/MUM/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12, Income Tax Appeal No. 2240/MUM/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13, Income Tax Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner submits that petitioner is a government undertaking. There is no probability of the petitioner doing the vanishing act or not complying with the demand in the event of dismissal of the appeals. However, he asserts that petitioner has a very good case on merit in the appeals and in all likelihood will succeed. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have granted stay of the recovery considering the fact that petitioner has already made payment of ₹ 116,09,20,000.00 as against the demand raised of ₹ 386,05,46,079.00 for the assessment years under consideration. He has contended that apart from the initial payment of 10% of the demand, petitioner has additionally paid 20% more, thus payment stands more than 30% of the demand raised. He has referred to the decisions of this Court which he submitted by way of a compilation and contends that this Court in several decisions notably in KEC International Ltd Vs. B.R. Balakrishnan 251 ITR 158 and UTI Mutual Fund Vs. I.T.O. 345 ITR 71 has laid down guiding principles to be followed by the revenue authorities while considering applications for stay of demand. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the said guideli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court by a detailed order dated 29.10.2014 after referring to the decisions of this Court in KEC International Ltd (supra) and UTI Mutual Funds (supra) and after due consideration, directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand subject to which recovery of balance amount of demand was stayed. 21. Though petitioner had made the deposit as directed by this Court, the fact remains that the said order was passed at the time of pendency of the appeal before the first appellate authority. As discussed above, the first appellate authority had rejected all the appeals of the petitioner by affirming the orders of assessment whereafter petitioner has preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. It is at the stage of pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, that question of stay of demand has arisen. 22. We may now advert to the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 19.02.2020. Relevant portion of the order dated 19.02.2020 reads as under:- 3. I have given serious consideration to the matter. It is undisputed that the issues have been decided against the Assessee Authority at the CIT (Appeals) level and that a substantial demand of ₹ 269.96 crores is outstandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under: Asstt. Year Demand raised Demand paid till date Balance Payable 2011-12 54,11,82,980 16,13,20,000 3 7,98,62,980 2012-13 103,11,07,570 31,32,00,000 71,79,07,570 2013-14 103,12,86,259 33,04,00,000 77,08,86,259 2014-15 118,69,69,270 35,60,00,000 8 3,09,69,270 Total 386,05,46,079 116,09,20,000 2,69,96,26,079 As could be seen from the above, even after payment of 30% out of the demands raised in assessments still a huge amount of ₹ 269.96 crores remains to be paid by the assessee. We have also noticed after disposal of assesse's appeals by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had approached ld. CIT (Exemption) seeking stay of recovery of outstanding demand and Ld. CIT (Exemption) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a government undertaking, revenue's demand is secured but we are also conscious of the fact that merely because the assessee is a government undertaking, it cannot be treated on a different footing or as a separate category of assessee. Mere fact that it is in a position to safeguard the interest of revenue cannot be a ground to stay the demand. Tribunal has exercised its discretion while passing the order dated 10.06.2020 whereunder reasons have been given as to why petitioner should pay a further amount of ₹ 20 crores against the outstanding demand of ₹ 269,96,26,079.00. The discretion exercised by the Tribunal, in our opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity to justify interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to invoke our writ jurisdiction. 25. While declining to interfere in the matter, we are however of the view that Tribunal should expedite hearing of the appeals of the petitioner including the one pertaining to cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act. If the petitioner files application for early hearing, the same sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
