TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that for the Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Revenue has raised a demand of Rupees 2,84,546/-, Rupees 6,95,479/- and Rupees 15,23,079/- respectively in regard whereof Demand Notices were served on 30.03.1983, 27.04.1983 and 27.04.1983 respectively. The Petitioner was under a bonafide belief that he was entitled to some additional relief under the unamended provisions of Section 80-J of the IT Act. As a consequence it had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through a writ petition in the course of the hearing of which the operation and effect of the amended provisions of Section 80-J of the IT Act had been stayed. The Petitioner had also moved applications dated 08.04.1983 and 25.05.1983 for the stay of the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en contended on behalf of the Petitioner that inasmuch as interest has been charged for the period prior to 25.1.1985, till which date the interim Orders of the Supreme Court were effective, the demand is palpably illegal. The following Table will clarify the position:- Assessment Year Amount Demanded Paid on Interest charged from Amount(Rs.) 1980-81 2,84,546 4.3.1985 1.4.1983 46,887 1981-82 6,95,479 4.3.1985 26.5.1983 1,19,410 1982-83 15,23,079 4.3.1985 26.5.1983 2,80,425 This contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner has only to be stated to be rejected forthwith, as it is devoid of all merits. The Petitioner was one amongst several others who had challenged the vires or the retrospective operation of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drawal of interim orders) is summarily rejected, it being devoid of merits. The following extract from Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. vs. UP State Electricity Board, (1997) 5 SCC 772 clarifies the legal position -"....It is equally well settled that an order of stay granted pending disposal of a writ petition/suit or other proceeding, comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceeding and that it is the duty of the court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the court prejudicing a party (Board in this case) for no fault of its and would also mean rewarding a writ petitioner in spite of his fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gument flies in the face of the pleadings in paragraph 11 of the Writ Petition which read as follows:- 11. The present petition is in respect of Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 & 1982-83. Regular assessments in the said matter were completed on 30.3.83, 27.4.83 & 27.4.83 respectively and the demands of Rs.2,84,456/-, Rs.6,95,470 & Rs.15,23,076/- were created. The demand notice in respect whereof were served on the assessee company on 30.3.83, 27.4.83 and 27.4.83 respectively". The factual foundations are contrary to the case now projected on behalf of the Petitioner. State of Kerala vs. Joy Varghese, 1999 STC 657 has no application since Demand Notices have been served. In view of the extracted admission, we also consider it unnecessary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer to reduce or waive interest. The argument goes on to posit that since this is plain from a mere reading of Section, it was not considered necessary to grant a hearing to the Petitioner. 8. Since Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, has laid substantial store on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Apeejay Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, [2001] 250 ITR 414 , we shall deal with it in some detail. While immediately clarifying that Apeejay Industries is distinguishable on facts, it is our view that Section 220(2A) is substantive and not procedural law, and that it will be the law as was prevailing on the date of the demand for payment of interest that will govern the case. In other words, the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of Section 220(2A) then it has the power either to reduce or waive the amount of interest. Even though in the said Sub-section it is not stated that any reasons are to be recorded in the order deciding such an application, it appears to us that it is implicit in the said provision that whenever such an application is filed the same should be decided by a speaking order. Principles of natural justice in this regard would be clearly applicable. It will be seen that a decision which is taken by the authority under Section 220(2A) can be subjected to judicial review, as was sought to be done in the present case by filing a petition under article 226, this being so and where the decision of the application may have rep....