The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
