DCIT vs. ITAT (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 26, 2013 (Date of publication)

Click here to download the judgement (motorola_ITAT_stay_refund.pdf)

Dept hauled up for “over-zealousness” and “ham-handed” attempt to recover taxes in violation of stay order. Tribunal is duty-bound to order refund of such taxes

The AO raised a demand of Rs.210.57 crores by making certain adjustments for the AMP expenditure incurred. This was confirmed by the DRP. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal as well an application before the CBDT under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) prescribed in Article 27 of the India-USA DTAA. The assessee also filed a stay application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted a stay of the demand for a period of 180 days or disposal of the appeal or of the MAP application, whichever is earlier. It was provided that the assessee sought an adjournment, the stay would be vacated. On the date fixed for hearing, the assessee pointed out that the issue of adjustments to the AMP expenditure was pending before the Special Bench in L. G. Electronics (since decided 152 TTJ 273) and so the appeal was adjourned. The AO took the view that as the assessee had sought an adjournment, the stay stood automatically vacated and so he attached the assessee’s bank account. The assessee filed an application u/s 151 of the CPC before the ITAT seeking refund of the amount recovered by the revenue. The Tribunal held that the adjournment was granted by it suo motu in conformity with judicial discipline as the issue was pending before the Special Bench. It held that the AO had acted in violation of the stay order and directed him to refund the amount collected. The Department filed a Writ Petition to challenge the said order. HELD by the High Court dismissing the Petition:

(i) A trivial adjournment, an overzealous revenue department, compelled apparently by year ending revenue collection targets, has led to this unnecessary litigation. It is not a case where the assessee sought an adjournment but one where the Tribunal chose to adjourn to await the decision of the Special Bench. Apart from that the show cause notice issued to the assessee does not refer to vacation of the stay order but refers to admission or not of the MAP application though that there was discussion relating to vacation of the stay order during the personal hearing. The AO should have been honest enough to issue a show cause notice on the ground that the stay order stands vacated. The vacillating stand of the revenue clearly indicates a confused state of mind, apparently compelled by the need to achieve targets fixed by superiors of the department;

(ii) As regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to order refund of the amount appropriated by the revenue, the Tribunal has rightly held that it is empowered, in view of nature of its jurisdiction, as well u/s 151 of the CPC to order refund, as the stay order has not been vacated. The power to ensure that its orders are not violated during pendency of a lis are inherent in any Court or Tribunal. In fact it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to ensure where its order is violated that the violation is adequately redressed and money appropriated, is restituted. If such a power is held not to be available to the Tribunal, its interim orders would be flouted with impunity. If, the revenue was of the opinion that the stay order has been violated by the assessee or has been vacated, it should have approached the Tribunal for clarification by way of an appropriate application but instead proceeded in a ham-handed manner, to appropriate this amount.

Note: This impliedly approves RPG Enterprises 251 ITR 20 (Mum) (AT), MSEB 81 ITD 299 (Mum) & KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 1 SOT 659 (Del) where the Tribunal directed the AO to refund taxes illegally recovered. Click here for more on the law of recovery
Tagged with:
One comment on “DCIT vs. ITAT (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
  1. over zealous AOs or Revenue authorities do collect taxes by coercion. So any coersive collection of Revenue is non excusat under natural justice.

    Even apart from stay too if AO illegally collects revenue then Revenue must refund, true Constitutional courts may impose penalty on Revenue besides.

    Government means it has to work on legal governing principles only not otherwise.

    you could have seen the other day AG Vahanavati exonerated Hassan Ali as there is no case against him due several reasons including Limitation sections in IT Act 1965.Possibly now Hassan Ali can move defamation against revenue under law of Torts and seek heavy compensation from Revenue too!

    So Revenue need to be very careful.

    Revenue need to honor rule of law sirs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *