Court upholds conditions for stay of assessment orders, cites CBDT circular. Petitioners must comply with deposit conditions.

The court upheld the conditions imposed in the Ext. P6 order for granting stay of assessment orders, citing a CBDT circular allowing 20% of disputed tax to be imposed as a condition. The challenge against the conditions failed due to non-compliance with a previous deposit condition. The court directed the 1st respondent to dispose of pending appeals within three months, with petitioners entitled to stay if they comply with the 10% deposit condition. Failure to comply would result in authorities proceeding with recovery. This directive was deemed exceptional and not a precedent.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging Ext. P6 order imposing conditions for granting stay of assessment orders; Compliance with conditions imposed by the court; Request for expeditious disposal of appeals pending before the 1st respondent.

Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed to challenge the Ext. P6 order passed by the 1st respondent, which imposed conditions for granting stay of assessment orders under challenge in the appeals before him. The conditions required the appellant to pay 10% of the demand by specific dates and produce a copy of the challan to the Assessing Officer. The balance demand was stayed for a limited period. The petitioners raised several grounds against the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent in imposing these conditions. However, the court noted that a previous condition imposed by the court for depositing the demand was also not complied with. The court decided not to interfere with the conditions imposed in Ext. P6 order, considering a CBDT circular that allowed 20% of disputed tax to be imposed as a condition for granting stay, leading to the challenge failing.

The court addressed the request for expeditious disposal of appeals pending before the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2016-2017. The learned counsel for the petitioners requested expeditious disposal, while the standing counsel for the respondents opposed issuing a direction for disposal within a specific timeframe, arguing against allowing the petitioners to avoid paying tax while insisting on quick appeal disposal. The court, as an exceptional case, directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Furthermore, the court stipulated that if the petitioners comply with the condition of depositing 10% within four weeks from the judgment date, they are entitled to the stay of the assessment orders under challenge until the disposal of the appeals. However, failure to comply with the condition would result in the petitioners not being entitled to the benefit of the stay orders, allowing authorities to proceed with recovery in accordance with the law. It was clarified that this order should not be treated as a precedent, emphasizing its exceptional nature in the given circumstances.

---