| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | M. S. Sanklecha J, M. S. Sonak J |
| SECTION(S): | 220(6) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | stay of demand |
| COUNSEL: | Madhur Agrawal, S.E. Dastur |
| DATE: | October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | December 4, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2011-12 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 220(6): Parameters to be considered in deciding a stay application laid down | |
The parameters to be considered in deciding stay application as laid down by this Court in KEC International Limited v/s. B. R. Balakrishnan 251 ITR 158; UTI Mutual Funds v/s. ITO 345 ITR 71 and UTI Mutual Fund v/s. ITO in W.P.(L) No.523 of 2013 rendered on 6th March 2013 which can for the purposes of disposing an application of stay can be summarized as under:
(a) The order on stay application must briefly set out the issue and the submission of the assessee/ applicant in support of the stay;
(b) In cases where the assessed income under the impugned order far exceeds returned income so as to make the demand arbitrary or the issue arising for consideration stands concluded by a decision of an higher forum or where the order appealed against is in breach of Natural Justice or the view taken in the order being appealed against is contrary to what has been held in the preceding previous years ( even if issue pending before higher forum) without there being a material change in facts or law, stay should normally be granted;
(c) If not, whether looking to the questions involved in appeal, keeping in view the likelihood of success in appeal what part of the demand the whole(in case issue covered against the applicant by a decision of higher forum) or part of it and must be justified by short reasons in the order disposing of the stay application;.
(c) Lack of financial hardship would not be a sole ground to direct deposit/payment of the demands if the assessee/applicant has a strong arguable case on merits;
(d) In cases where the assessee/applicant relies upon financial difficulties, the authority concerned should briefly indicate whether the assessee is financially sound and viable to deposit the amount or the apprehension of the revenue of non recovery later. Thus warranting deposit. This of course, if the case is not otherwise sustainable on merits;
(d) The authority concerned will also examine whether the time to prefer an appeal has expired. Generally, coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the statute to go in appeal. However, if the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order.
(e) In exercising the powers of stay, the Authority should always bear in mind that as a quasi judicial authority it is vested with the public duty of protecting the interest of the Revenue while at the same time balancing the need to mitigate hardship to the assessee. Though the assessing officer has made an assessment, he must objectively decide the application for stay considering that an appeal lies against his order; the application for stay must be considered from all its facets and the order should be passed, balancing the interest of the assessee with the protection of the Revenue.
The above guidelines are only illustrative and the authority concerned would have to have exercise his discretion in matters of stay on the facts of the case before him.
Recent Comments