| COURT: | ITAT Chandigarh |
| CORAM: | Annapurna Gupta (AM), Sanjay Garg (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 254 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | stay of demand, strictures |
| COUNSEL: | Meghraj |
| DATE: | April 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | April 10, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2013-14 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Strictures passed against the Dept for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. The Dept is showing open defiance of, disrespect of, or of open resentment to, orders of the Tribunal, which may prove be very dangerous for the sanctity of the courts of law/Justice dispensation system of the country. Costs imposed on dept | |
(i) The crux of our above discussion is that the department officials fully knowing that no useful purpose will be served either by moving the present application and even knowing that the present application was infructuous and non-maintainable even on the date of its filing, not only filed this application, but also insisted for arguments despite that the hearing on the main appeal had already been concluded on a previous date. The only motive behind this application is to confront and show resentment and displeasure to this Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery in this matter.
(ii) The wording of the opening part of the application for vacation of stay clearly reveals that the Department is showing her resentment not only about the passing of ex-parte interim stay order but also towards the directions of the Tribunal for directing her to refund the amount illegally recovered.
(iii) At this stage, we are pained to note that that the Department, in case it is aggrieved of any order passed by the Tribunal, instead of approaching the higher forum/ Hon’ble High or the Hon’ble Apex Court, has now a days chosen the course of showing open defiance of, disrespect of or of open resentment to orders of the Tribunal, which may prove be very dangerous for the sanctity of the courts of law/Just ice dispensation system of the country. Our above observations are in view of the some other cases also where the Department has either violated the Stay orders or come with applications for vacation of stay orders despite the fact the Ld. representatives of the Department itself making requests for adjournments. When being asked, the only explanation comes that as 31s t March is approaching, they have to achieve their targets of the tax collection. We would also like to caution the concerned officers that this type of conduct of open resentment against the judicial orders may also compel us to initiate and recommend to the Hon’ble High Court for appropr iate action under the contempt of cour ts Act.
(iii) In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the department has chosen to file and contest the preset application fully knowing that the same is frivolous, infructuous, not maintainable and in fact redundant with the only motive to openly show resentment against the passing of stay orders by the Tribunal, instead of challenging the same before the higher judicial authorities. This application is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s Relief fund within 15 days of receipt of the copy of this order. While ordering so, we are cautious that it will not result into any loss to the Govt. Exchequer but the movement of some funds from one branch of the Govt. to the other perhaps will convey the message of caution to the concerned officials. However, keeping judicial restraint, no contempt of court proceedings recommended at this stage.
IT IS TOO MUCH ON THE PART OF THE HONOURABLE ITAT TO EXPECT COURTSEY FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE OFFICERS OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DO NOT HESITATE IN SHOWING DISRESPECT TO THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT.