TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes order demanding 20% payment, directs new order after hearing petitioners</h1> The High Court found the challenged order lacking reasoning for demanding 20% payment for stay of the remaining 80% demand under the Income Tax Act. ... Stay petition - contention of the petitioner is essentially that, in Ext.P9 order, there is no mention of any reason as to why the Appellate Authority deemed it necessary for the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand, as a condition for stay of the balance 80% of the demand arising from the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal - HELD THAT:- Ext.P9 order is a laconic one bereft of any reasoning, and hence, cannot be legally sustained. Therefore quash Ext.P9 order, and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on the stay petition after hearing the petitioners. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent, at his Office, at 11.00 a.m. on 14.11.2019. The 1st respondent shall pass order in the matter, as directed, within one month thereafter. It is made clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioners by the assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent, as directed, and the order communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action. Issues: Challenge against Ext.P9 order in a stay application filed along with an appeal under the Income Tax Act. Lack of reasoning in Ext.P9 order for requiring 20% payment for stay of the balance 80% demand.Analysis:1. The writ petition challenged Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent, which required the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand as a condition for stay of the remaining 80% demand pending appeal. The petitioners contended that Ext.P9 order lacked any reasoning for imposing this condition, citing the decision in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer. The High Court noted the absence of reasoning in Ext.P9 order and deemed it legally unsustainable.2. After hearing both parties, the High Court found Ext.P9 order to be devoid of any rationale. Consequently, the court quashed Ext.P9 order and directed the 1st respondent to issue fresh orders on the stay petition after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners were instructed to appear before the 1st respondent on a specified date to facilitate the issuance of a new order within one month. Recovery actions against the petitioners were to be suspended until the new order was communicated.3. The High Court emphasized the importance of providing reasoning in such orders and highlighted the necessity for the 1st respondent to pass a well-founded decision on the stay petition. The petitioners were instructed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 1st respondent for further proceedings. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with the directions provided in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
