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 refund adjusted against outstanding demands for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 was liable to be reversed in part, and whether the respondents were required to confine the adjustment to 20% of the demand.
Analysis: The applications for stay of demand had been filed before the adjustment of the refund arising for the assessment year 2023-24. The Court proceeded on the basis that, if the petitioner had made payment of 20% of the demand on the date of the stay applications, the balance 80% would have stood stayed. In view of the adjustment already made, the appropriate course was to limit the set-off to 20% of the demand and to restore the remaining amount that had been adjusted.
Conclusion: The adjustment was confined to 20% of the demand for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, and the respondents were directed to refund the balance 80% already adjusted.