Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Court upholds deposit condition for Co-operative Bank tax payment, grants extension for installment payments. The Court upheld the condition requiring a Co-operative Bank to deposit 20% of the tax demanded in installments, finding no justification for ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court upholds deposit condition for Co-operative Bank tax payment, grants extension for installment payments.
The Court upheld the condition requiring a Co-operative Bank to deposit 20% of the tax demanded in installments, finding no justification for interference. The Court granted an extension for the commencement of payments in the interest of justice, modifying the order to allow payment in five equal monthly installments, with the first installment due by a specified date. The Assessing Officer was tasked with monitoring payments, warning of revocation of the stay if defaults occurred. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition, balancing the deposit condition with the extension granted for payment commencement.
Issues Involved: 1. Challenge to the condition of depositing 20% in a stay petition. 2. Request for extension of time to make the first installment.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Challenge to the condition of depositing 20% in a stay petition The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, challenged the condition imposed in Ext.P4, which required depositing 20% of the tax demanded in five equal installments. The petitioner argued that the condition was onerous and not aligned with the merits of their appeal. However, the Court noted that Ext.P4 was made by the 2nd respondent considering the directions from the CBDT and the merits of the case. The Court found that there was adequate consideration and application of mind by the 2nd respondent in granting the stay order. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the challenge against Ext.P4 failed.
Issue 2: Request for extension of time to make the first installment Additionally, the petitioner requested an extension of time to commence the payment of installments, proposing to start the first installment on or before the 30th day of July, 2019. The Court, in the interest of justice, accepted this request. The modified order now required the payment of 20% of the balance demand in five equal monthly installments, with the first installment due on or before the specified date. The Assessing Officer was tasked with monitoring the payment and reporting any defaults by the appellant, warning that failure to pay would result in the revocation of the stay granted. This modification was made to accommodate the petitioner's request and ensure compliance with the payment schedule.
In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition accordingly, upholding the condition of depositing 20% in installments but allowing an extension for the commencement of payments to meet the ends of justice.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
