Tribunal Denies Stay Vacating, Imposes Costs, Emphasizes Judicial Respect, and Orders Compliance Monitoring

The Tribunal dismissed the department's application to vacate the stay orders, imposing costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. It warned against open defiance of judicial orders, emphasizing respect for the judicial process and scheduled a follow-up for compliance monitoring.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Vacation of ad interim stay orders dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017.
2. Recovery of tax demand by the Assessing Officer despite the stay order.
3. Justification for vacation of interim stay orders.
4. Department's conduct and compliance with judicial orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vacation of ad interim stay orders dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017:
The department filed an application to vacate the ad interim stay orders dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017. It argued that the orders were non-reasoned and contrary to well-settled law. The Tribunal had initially stayed the recovery of demand as an interim measure on 15.2.2017 and extended it on 28.4.2017. However, the Tribunal noted that these orders were interim measures and had already expired, with subsequent orders superseding them.

2. Recovery of tax demand by the Assessing Officer despite the stay order:
Despite the stay order dated 15.2.2017, the Assessing Officer attached the assessee’s bank account on 17.2.2017 and recovered Rs. 29,08,230/-. The Tribunal found this action illegal and directed the Assessing Officer to refund the amount. The Tribunal's order dated 28.4.2017 emphasized that the Assessing Officer violated the stay order despite being aware of it.

3. Justification for vacation of interim stay orders:
The Assessing Officer justified the recovery by claiming the absence of documentary evidence of the stay order. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this justification. It noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide any reasons or justification for vacating the interim stay orders, which had already been violated and disobeyed.

4. Department's conduct and compliance with judicial orders:
The Tribunal observed that the department officials, knowing the application was infructuous, insisted on arguments, showing open defiance and resentment towards the Tribunal's orders. The Tribunal criticized this conduct, warning that such actions could undermine the sanctity of the judicial system. It emphasized that the department should approach higher judicial authorities if aggrieved by any order, rather than showing defiance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the department's application for vacation of the stay orders, imposing costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. It warned the department against open defiance of judicial orders and emphasized the importance of respecting the judicial process. The Tribunal scheduled a follow-up to ensure compliance with its orders.

---