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 revisionist was entitled to complete stay of the tax demand pending disposal of the statutory appeal, where the assessment had proceeded on a precedent later overruled by the Constitution Bench and the contract was claimed to be a composite works contract.
Analysis: The challenge was confined to interim protection against recovery. The assessment had been made by treating the transaction as a sale contract on the basis of an earlier Supreme Court decision that had subsequently been overruled. In such a situation, the appeal authority was required to consider whether the assessee had a strong prima facie case and whether insistence on deposit would cause undue hardship. The material placed showed a composite contract involving supply and installation of lifts, and the demand had been sustained by relying exclusively on the overruled view.
Conclusion: The revisionist was entitled to complete stay of recovery of the disputed demand pending disposal of the appeal.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the Tribunal's interim order was modified, and recovery of the remaining demand was stayed until the appeal is decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessed demand rests solely on a precedent that has been overruled, and the assessee shows a strong prima facie case, interim recovery should be stayed to prevent undue hardship pending appeal.