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 petitioner was entitled to stay of demand pending disposal of the appeal.
Analysis: The impugned orders did not consider the relevant factors governing stay, including the existence of a prima facie case and the balance of convenience. The demand related to by-products arising from milling paddy, and the petitioner's contention that no separate charge was made for such by-products raised an arguable issue for consideration in appeal. The balance of convenience also favoured protection against immediate recovery, as freezing the petitioner's bank accounts would cause serious prejudice to its public utility operations and to the public at large. The circular relied upon by the revenue was only illustrative and could not be treated as exhaustive of the grounds for grant of stay.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to stay of the demand pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal, and the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: Recovery was stayed and coercive steps were restrained until the appeal was decided.
Ratio Decidendi: In considering stay of demand pending appeal, the authority must apply the settled factors of prima facie case and balance of convenience, and illustrative administrative guidelines cannot be treated as exhaustive or inflexible.