On merits, the argument that the Explanation below s. 80-IA (13) provides for a levy of tax which was hitherto unknown is not acceptable. It cannot be said that the Legislature in introducing the explanation materially changed the exemption which existed till such explanation was introduced. The explanation was introduced for the “removal of doubts” and is declaratory in nature. By the Explanation, the Legislature has distinguished between cases of developing/ operating etc from a works contract. It cannot be disputed that there is an intrinsic difference between developing an infrastructure facility and executing a works contract. The Explanation merely aims to clarify that deduction u/s 80IA(4) is not available in case of execution of works contract. Such an interpretation is possible even on the basis of the existing provisions of s. 80IA (4) (Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 (Guj) referred)

The action of attaching the assessee’s bank account u/s 226(3) during the pendency of a stay application and without giving it notice was arbitrary and high handed. The whole object of serving a notice on the assessee is to enable the assessee to have some recourse. While in a given case, it may not be feasible to serve a prior notice on the assessee if there is an apprehension that the monies would be spirited away, this was not a case of that type. In a situation such as the present where appeals filed by the assessee are pending before the CIT (A) and the assessee had sought an opportunity of being heard and filed applications for stay, there was no justification whatsoever to proceed hastily with the enforcement of the recovery of the demand without disposing of the application for stay

The order of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. IBM India Pvt. Ltd cannot be read to mean that consideration of whether an assessee has made out a strong prima facie case for stay of enforcement of a demand is irrelevant. Nor is the law to the effect that absent a case of financial hardship, no stay on the recovery of a demand can be granted even though a strong prima facie case is made out. In considering whether a stay of demand should be granted, the Court is duty bound to consider not merely the issue of financial hardship if any, but also whether a strong prima facie raising a serious triable issue has been raised which would warrant a dispensation of deposit. That is a settled position in the jurisprudence of our revenue legislation. In CEAT Limited v. UOI 2010 (250) ELT 200 (Bom) it was held that “If the party has made out a strong prima facie case, that by itself would be a strong ground in the matter of exercise of discretion as calling on the party to deposit the amount which prima facie is not liable to deposit or which demand has no legs to stand upon, by itself would result in undue hardship of the party is called upon to deposit the amount.” Where a strong prima facie case has been made out, calling upon the assessee to deposit would itself occasion undue hardship. Where the issue has raised a strong prima face case which requires serious consideration as in the present case, a requirement of pre-deposit would itself be a matter of hardship. Also the manner in which the Revenue has sought to brush aside a binding decision of the Court in the case of the assessee on the issue of a stay on enforcement for the previous year has to be serious disapproved. The rule of law has an abiding value in our legal regime. No public authority, including the Revenue, can ignore the principle of precedent. Certainty in tax administration is of cardinal importance and its absence undermines public confidence

The CBDT has accepted that incorrect and wrong demands have been uploaded on the CPC arrears portal. In his letter dated 21.08.2012, the CIT, CPC, has expressed his concern and anguish on account of uploading of incorrect and wrong data in the CPU and the problem faced by them and by the assesses. The CBDT has issued Circular No. 4 of 2012 in which the burden is put on the assessee to approach the AOs to get their records updated and corrected by filing s. 154 applications. While this may be the easiest option available, it should not be a ground for the AO not to suo motu correct his records and upload correct data. Each assessee has a right and can demand that correct and true data relating to the past demands should be uploaded. Asking the assessee to file s. 154 applications entails substantial expenses and defeats the main purpose behind computerisation. Also, the AO’s do not adhere to the time limit prescribed for disposal of the s. 154 applications. To ensure transparency (and accountability), a register must be maintained with details and particulars of each application made u/s 154, the date on which it was made, date of disposal and its fate. The s. 154 application has to be disposed of by a speaking order and communicated to the assessee. There must be full compliance of the said requirements

The Circular is purported to be issued in terms of the judgement in Krishna Sales (73) ELT 519 (SC). Though in Krishna Sales it was held that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as stay or suspension of the order appealed against, the Board has overlooked the fact that the assessee is not seeking stay only on account of filing of an appeal, but for the reason that the assessee has sought dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and has a right to demand decision on such application, a right which is created by the Statute. Therefore, the very basis of the Circular is untenable, misconceived, wholly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the condition of recovery, if no stay is granted within 30 days, is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and consequently set aside (Larsen & Tuobro (Bom) referred)

The assessee took a business decision not to honour its commitment of fulfilling the export entitlement in view of loss being suffered by it. The genuineness of the claim of expenditure being for business purpose is not disputed. The assessee has not contravened any provision of law and the forfeiture of the bank guarantee is compensatory in nature and does not attract the Explanation to s. 37(1)