TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical items. For the assessment year 1988-89 the assessing authority raised against the petitioner-company a demand for the payment of tax to the tune of Rs. 1,37,07,493 (this figure has been taken from the impugned order of April 21, 1995). This demand was called into question by the petitionercompany before the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, who accepted the appeal and remanded it to respondent No. 3, Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Pali, who in turn vide his order of March 20, 1995, reduced the demand to a sum of Rs. 88,71,412. It was inclusive of sales tax, interest and penalty thereon. The petitioner-company fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. This application was allowed on September 23, 1995, by respondent No. 1 who ordered that the outstanding amount be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 5,87,000. The petitioner-company filed the present writ petition on October 6, 1995, before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. A stay application which was filed along with this writ petition was allowed and an interim stay granted by the honourable High Court. 5. The petitioner-company prayed that the impugned order of April 21, 1995 and the demand notice of September 15, 1995, be quashed. The respondent No. 2 may be directed to decide the appeal pending before him within a fixed period. The respondents may be directed not to take coercive measures for the recovery o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the petitioner-company has directed his attack against the impugned order which respondent No. 1 made on April 21, 1995, whereby as mentioned earlier he stayed the recovery of a sum of Rs. 19 lacs out of the total amount of penalty of Rs. 39,70,278. No stay was granted in respect of the demand so far as it related to the amount of tax and interest thereon which were in the region of 42 lacs and 28 lacs respectively. He contends that the impugned order contains certain observations which are unwarranted and uncalled for and which are more than likely to fetter the discretion of respondent No. 2 before whom the appeal is pending disposal. In order to bear it out he has referred to us the observation contained in the impugned ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... omitted to make a reference to it. There can be no objection to his making a reference to it. He has also come to the conclusion that petitionercompany has no prima facie case. Again, he is very much justified in concluding that no prima facie case was proved in favour of the petitioner-company. There is nothing in this order which can be termed as unnecessary, unwarranted and uncalled for. No observation made in it is likely to cause any prejudice to the petitioner-company before respondent No. 2. The order lists the various objections/ grounds raised before respondent No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner-company. He applied his mind to all those objections/grounds. Thus, the order contains the facts, the issues raised before him, the decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not known to us. In view of these circumstances it is in the fitness of things that we stay the whole of the demand with regard to the amount of penalty to the tune of Rs. 39,70,278. 10.. The learned counsel for the respondents contends before us that the Tribunal must be very slow in staying the recovery of amount in revenue matters. We are of the view that the courts and the Tribunals while dealing with such cases must act with circumspection and caution, but at the same time we cannot bang the door in the face of assessees and tax-payers in all the cases, regardless of their facts and circumstances. No cut and dried solution or precisely weighed and measured formula applicable to all the cases can be devised and laid down. A balance h....