TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Prompt Stay Decision to Protect Petitioner's Rights</h1> The court directed respondent No.3 to consider and decide the stay application expeditiously to prevent the petitioner from suffering substantially. The ... Appeal u/s 246 - stay of demand - appeal and stay application both are pending since January, 2011 - held that:- Petitioner to file an application for expeditious hearing of the stay application, stated to be pending along with the appeal - On filing of such an application, the respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the application for stay, expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of 30 days, from the date of filing of such application - So far as appeal is concerned, the respondent No.3 shall make an endeavour to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of 4 months - Till the application for stay is decided or for a period of 30 days, whichever is earlier, it is directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for enforcing recovery in question - Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Issues:- Petitioner seeking relief to stay demand till appeal is decided- Petitioner requesting respondent No.3 to expedite appeal consideration- Petitioner's application for stay pending decision- Similar case reference for expeditious considerationAnalysis:The petitioner, an I.A.S. officer, sought relief to stay the demand created by respondent No.1 until the appeal is decided by respondent No.3. The appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act was filed against the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and has been pending since January 2011. The petitioner emphasized that the assessment order was affecting their career and requested respondent No.3 to expedite the appeal's consideration. Additionally, an application for stay was filed along with the appeal, which had not been decided yet. The court acknowledged the pending appeal and stay application since January 2011 and directed respondent No.3 to consider and decide the stay application expeditiously to prevent the petitioner from suffering substantially.In a similar case reference, a division bench of the court disposed of the matter with specific directions. The court directed the petitioner to file applications in all the appeals for hearing the stay application and mandated respondent No.3 to consider and decide the applications for stay within 15 days from the date of filing. Furthermore, respondent No.3 was instructed to make an effort to decide all appeals within three months. The court prohibited any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery enforcement until the stay application was decided or for a specific period. The judgment highlighted the importance of expeditious consideration of appeals and stay applications to prevent undue hardship on the petitioner.Considering the identical nature of the petitioner's case, the court issued similar directions. The petitioner was instructed to file an application for expeditious hearing of the pending stay application, and respondent No.3 was mandated to decide the stay application within 30 days of filing. Additionally, respondent No.3 was directed to make efforts to hear and decide the appeal within four months. Similar to the previous case, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner for enforcing recovery until the stay application was decided or for a specified period. The judgment emphasized the need for timely resolution of legal matters to prevent adverse consequences for the petitioner's career.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
