2019 (7) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of both the learned counsel, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 4. The main writ petition itself was heard out, though the matter is listed under the caption 'FOR ADMISSION'. As mentioned supra, this is by consent of both the counsel considering the narrow scope of which the entire writ petition turns. 5. This petitioner is an income tax assessee and the entire writ petition pertains to assessment year 2012-2013. 6. Considering the narrow scope of the writ petition and the stated position of the learned Standing counsel for respondents, it may not be necessary to advert to the facts in great detail. 7. Suffice to say that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent and has al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....strations have been provided in the Circulars themselves, the financial stringency faced by an assessee and the balance of convenience in the matter constitute the 'trinity', so to say, and are indispensable in consideration of a stay petition by the authority. The Board has, while stating generally that the assessee shall be called upon to remit 20% of the disputed demand, granted ample discretion to the authority to either increase or decrease the quantum demanded based on the three vital factors to be taken into consideration. 14. The disposal of the request for stay by the petitioner leaves much to be desired. I am of the categoric view that the Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of the conditions precedent for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the Revenue has to necessarily follow the parameters laid down in the said order for disposal of stay petition. 12. Before this Court proceeds further, to be fair to the first respondent, it is to be recorded that this Court has noticed that the impugned order was passed on 22.09.2017, whereas the aforesaid order came to be passed by this Court only on 13.02.2019. 13. Be that as it may, as there is no dispute or disagreement that the aforesaid order is operating and the obtaining position with regard to disposal of stay petitions, it follows as a natural sequitur that the impugned order which is cryptic and which does not make any reference to the parameters and determinants adumbrated in the aforesaid order deserves to be set asid....