TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Tribunal Stay Extensions: High Court Emphasizes Periodic Review & Speaking Orders</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER. Versus KEMIT CHEMICALS PVT LTD.</h3> The High Court held that the Tribunal can extend the stay beyond 365 days under certain conditions, emphasizing the need for periodic review and disposal ... Power of tribunal to grant stay beyond the total period of 365 days - extension of stay granted earlier - extension order should be speaking or not - Held that:- In view of the decision in case of Commissioner vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India (2014 (7) TMI 738 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) it can be concluded that the Tribunal did not lack the power to extend stay beyond 365 days from the initial date of granting stay. However, if the stand of the revenue is that such extension was without recording reasons or without passing speaking order as required by the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India (2014 (7) TMI 738 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) it would be open for the Department to move a rectification application before the Tribunal - Appeal disposed of. Issues involved:1. Whether the Tribunal can extend the stay beyond 365 days in violation of statutory provisionsRs.2. Whether the Tribunal is required to pass a speaking order while extending stayRs.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The main issue in this case was whether the Tribunal could extend the stay beyond 365 days in violation of statutory provisions. The High Court referred to the case of Commissioner vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, where it was held that the Tribunal could extend the stay beyond 365 days under certain conditions. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal must review the situation every 180 days and consider each extension of stay on its merits. It was clarified that the Tribunal should not extend the stay indefinitely and must make efforts to dispose of appeals at the earliest, especially when the stay is against the revenue. The Court also directed the Tribunal to maintain separate registers for cases with stay orders and prioritize their disposal.Issue 2: The second issue revolved around whether the Tribunal was required to pass a speaking order while extending stay. The Court noted that in a previous case, it was held that the Tribunal must pass a speaking and reasoned order when extending stay. The Court directed that all matters be remanded to the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders afresh within two months, ensuring that the stay orders are continued during this period. The Court made it clear that even during this two-month period, the Tribunal could finalize the appeals.In conclusion, the High Court clarified that while the Tribunal had the power to extend stay beyond 365 days, it must do so with proper reasons and by passing a speaking order. The Court allowed the Department to file a rectification application if the extension of stay was found to be without proper reasoning. The tax appeal was disposed of with these observations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
