9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner is entitled to refund of adjustments made in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands. (See: Glaxo Smith Kline Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Ors.,[ 2007 (1) TMI 113 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. [ 2014 (10) TMI 746 - DELHI HIGH COURT] This Court directs the Respondents to verify the facts stated in the writ petition and if they find them to be true and correct then refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands for the Assessment Year 2016-17 to the Petitioner within six weeks. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd during pendency thereof deposits 20% of the total disputed outstanding tax demand, the assessing officer is empowered to grant stay of recovery of the balance outstanding demand. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that upon payment/recovery of the standard rate of 20% of the disputed outstanding tax demand, the assessing officer is mandated to grant stay on recovery of the balance disputed outstanding tax demand till disposal of first appeal of the assessee, unless the case of the assessee falls in the category mentioned in paragraph (B) of the Office Memorandums dated 29th February, 2016 and 31st July, 2017. He states that the Respondents in violation of the provisions of the Office Memorandums recovered the disputed outstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February, 2020 was passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench, which had also directed the CIT(A) to decide the Petitioner's stay application. However, the said stay application has not been decided till date. 8. This Court is of the view that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra as in Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(2), W.P.(C) 6172/2021 and other connected matters, this Court in similar facts has held as under:- "9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Government is bound to follow the rules and standards they themselves had set on pain of their action being invalidated. [See: Amarjit Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeals in accordance with paragraph 4(A) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016, as amended by the office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017. 13. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 is directed to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed demand for the Assessment Year 2017-18, within four weeks….." 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law as well as non-compliance of order dated 07th February, 2020 and the fact that the refunds have been adjusted against the outstanding tax demand by the Authority without following the procedure prescribed under Section 245 of the Act, inasmuch as no notice or opport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
