Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant stay of recovery of tax and penalty pending a reference or an application under section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975.
Analysis: The majority held that section 45(7) contains an express and comprehensive prohibition against stay of payment of tax and penalty after the Appellate Tribunal has ?determined liability and while the reference is pending before the High Court. The power of stay was treated as incidental to appellate jurisdiction under section 45(5), but not as part of the referential jurisdiction under section 45. The words of section 45(7) were construed as applying both to references made under section 45(1) and to references arising in consequence of an application under section 45(2), and the High Court was held not to possess inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to override that statutory bar.
Conclusion: The High Court has no power to grant stay of recovery of tax pending disposal of a reference or a section 45(2) application, and the stay application was not competent.
Dissenting Opinion: One Judge held that section 45(7) does not expressly cover section 45(2), that the High Court's powers under section 45(2) are akin to mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that the High Court retains inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant stay of recovery of tax in appropriate cases.