| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | G. S. Kulkarni J, M. S. Sanklecha J |
| SECTION(S): | 245(2A) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | stay of demand |
| COUNSEL: | Jas Sanghvi, Megha Sharma, Nishant Thakkar |
| DATE: | December 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | January 15, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2009-10 to 2012-13 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 254(2A): As the Third Proviso which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond 365 days “even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” has been struck down in Pepsi Foods 376 ITR 87 (Del) as being arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, the law laid down in Narang Overseas 295 ITR 22 (Bom) & Ronuk Industries 333 ITR 99 (Bom) that the ITAT has power to grant stay beyond 365 days has to be followed | |
The ratio of the decision of this Court in “Narang Overseas (P) Ltd.” (supra) would apply even to the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. The basis of the decision in “Narang Overseas (P) Ltd.” (supra) was that the power to grant stay or interim relief has to be read as coextensive with the power to grant final relief. The object being that in the absence of the power to grant interim relief the final relief itself may be defeated. This Court thereafter followed the decision of the Apex Court in “CCE vs. Kumar Cotton Mills(P) Ltd., (2005(180) ELT 434 (SC)) and held that notwithstanding the pre-substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act the Tribunal continues to have powers to grant interim relief. In the above view, therefore, the ratio of the decision in “Narang Overseas (P) Ltd.” (supra) would apply even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act
Recent Comments