TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter referred to as "the Act") whereby the petitioner's stay application was disposed of on the premise that, stay cannot be granted in compliance with the Rules/ instructions as the petitioner has not paid the prescribed 20% of the disputed amount till the date of passing of the impugned order. 2. Before I proceed to deal with the grounds of challenge, it may be relevant to very briefly set-out the facts of the case: i) The petitioner is an Association of persons running a Petrol Bunk under the Dealership Agreement with M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., The petitioner has been assigned the Permanent Account Number (PAN) as AAATT0620P and running the Petrol Bunk, selling Petrol, Diesel and Lubricating Oil to the general public....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment for the assessment year 2017-18 before the 1st Respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, a stay application was filed, however, even before the stay application was disposed of, recoveries were made to the extent of Rs.74.66 lakhs despite the fact that the appeal along with the stay application has been preferred. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3611 of 2022 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.74,66,660.44 debited on 20.03.2020 for the assessment year 2017-18 as due for Income Tax from the Current Account No.30550046885 maintained in the State Bank of India, Rock Fort City Branch, Trichirappalli - 620 002, to the petitioner along with applicable inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erve Bank of India and the Government of India had permitted / authorised Petrol Bunks to receive Specified Bank Notes (hereinafter referred to as "SBN"). d. That the impugned orders of assessment has been made without appreciating the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. The impugned order has been passed rejecting the stay application only on the premise that the petitioner has not paid the prescribed 20% of the disputed demand till date and thus the question of stay of demand in compliance with the Board's instructions is impermissible. e. That the impugned order did not take into account the amount which has already been recovered while considering the prayer for stay application. 6. It is submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of Instruction No.1914, "in a case where the outstanding demand disputed before CIT(A), the assessing officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. As the assessee has not paid the prescribed 20% of the disputed demand till date, stay of demand cannot be granted by the undersigned in compliance to the above Board's Instruction." 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order cannot be sustained inasmuch as it has not taken into account the trinity principle laid down by this Court in the case of Kannammal and Queen Agencies despite a specific direction. 8. To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the ....