| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | August 6, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
| Click here to download the judgement (unique_artage_HC_ITAT.pdf) |
Statutory body like the ITAT is expected to show consistency. Change in constitution of Bench does not mean diametrically opposite views can be taken by the Members
The assessee filed a stay application before the Tribunal requesting stay of demand and early hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal passed an order holding that it was satisfied that the assessee has an arguable case. It granted stay of the demand and directed early hearing of the appeal in June 2013. However, as the bench of the ITAT was not available in June, the matter was adjourned to August 2013. The assessee filed an application requesting for a date in the next month on the basis that a senior counsel was to appear on its behalf. The Tribunal passed an order thereon stating that as the assessee sought an adjournment, “There thus does not appear to be any urgency for getting the dispute resolved by him”. It also held that it was not “a good case for granting absolute stay” and that there was “no merit”. It accordingly rejected the application for adjournment and the stay application. The assessee challenged this in a Writ Petition in the High Court. HELD by the High Court:
It is really surprising that the Tribunal having once held that the petitioner has a prima facie case while disposing of its stay petition, has taken diametrically opposite view when it later dismissed the stay petition. Moreover, when the stay petition was already dismissed, which stay petition was again dismissed, is not clear. Notwithstanding change of composition of the bench, a certain amount of consistency is expected in the working of a statutory Tribunal like the ITAT. The learned senior counsel is right when he argues that if the Tribunal had formed an opinion, albeit tentatively, in the matter, it should have heard and decided the appeal itself. Having regard to the fact that already when the Tribunal had earlier observed that petitioner had an arguable case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Tribunal to finally hear and decide the appeal
If your case is posted before a “babu” member who is finally retiring, it is obvious to have such orders by tribunal and by high court too
@ Sher Singh
Restraint, brother, restraint ! Reporting a fact and an order is one thing, and making this loaded and not so dignified remark is quite another.