M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3392/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093184201502 March 2015Author: MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI,MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by continuing the stay order dated February 27, 2014, granted by the ITAT. The court reasoned that it was fair to continue the stay, considering the previous stay and the ITAT's observations that the appeals could not be taken up for hearing due to no fault of the assessee. The continuation of the stay was made conditional upon an undertaking by the petitioner that it would not seek any adjournment whatsoever before the Tribunal in respect of appeals pertaining to previous assessment years. The petitioner also agreed that if it failed to appear for hearings, the Tribunal could proceed in its absence. Liberty was granted to the respondents to apply for modification or vacation of the order if they agreed to all terms and conditions in the petitioner's letter dated January 30, 2015.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking to continue a stay granted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had initially ordered the assessee to pay ₹57 crores by March 30, 2014, and ₹11 crores by June 30, 2014, staying the balance demand for 180 days. This stay was extended until February 26, 2015. A further application for stay was denied by the ITAT, leading to the present petition. The revenue contended that the assessment for the year 2009-10 was dependent on previous years' assessments (2003-04 onwards) and that the petitioner was seeking adjournments in those proceedings. The revenue also pointed to a letter dated January 30, 2015, where the petitioner agreed to pay ₹25 crores by March 2015.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was entitled to grant a stay of demand pending appeal, and if so, should the existing stay be continued? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the ITAT under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the stay granted by the ITAT should be continued, especially in light of the ITAT's previous observations that appeals could not be heard due to no fault of the assessee. They also highlighted that their offer to pay ₹25 crores was conditional upon the respondents agreeing to certain aspects, including approvals under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessment for the year 2009-10 was dependent on earlier years' assessments, and the petitioner was seeking adjournments. They also referred to the petitioner's agreement to pay ₹25 crores by March 2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

281

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.03.2015 M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hissar and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate, for the respondents. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (Oral)

1.

This is a petition to continue the stay granted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'ITAT') vide order dated 27.02.2014 (Annexure P-3). The ITAT directed the petitioner-assessee to pay a sum of `57 crores and `11 crores by 30.03.2014 and 30.06.2014 and stayed the balance demand for 180 days. This stay was extended vide further order dated 27.08.2014 upto 26.02.2015. The further application for stay was not allowed on the ground that the ITAT was not entitled to do so. It is for this reason that the present petition has been filed.

2.

In view of the order of stay having been granted by the ITAT earlier and in view of the observations made in the order dated 27.08.2014 that the appeals could not be taken up for hearing for no fault of the assessee, it is only fair that the stay granted by the ITAT vide order dated 27.02.2014 continues pending the appeal.

3.

Counsel for the respondents has raised a grievance that the SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.03.19 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh assessment for the year in question namely 2009-10 is dependent upon the assessment for the previous years namely from the assessment year 2003-04 onwards and that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments in those proceedings.

4.

It is further contended that the petitioner itself agreed by the letter dated 30.01.2015 to pay a sum of `25 crores by the last week of March, 2015. The letter, however, must be read as a whole. Several offers were made but conditional upon the respondents also agreeing to certain aspects. One of the most important aspects was that the Commissioner of Income Tax had allegedly agreed that approvals would be granted to the assessee under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the applications filed by it. Failure to deposit the amount by itself, therefore, cannot be a ground for refusing the stay.

5.

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by continuing the order dated 27.02.2014. It is, however, in view of the undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that it will not seek any adjournment whatsoever before the Tribunal in respect of the appeals filed by it pertaining to the previous assessment years. It is agreed by the petitioner that if for any reasons, it fails to appear during the hearing, the Tribunal shall be entitled to proceed in its absence. In the event of the respondents agreeing to all the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 30.01.2015, liberty to apply to have this order modified or vacated. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 02.03.2015 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.03.19 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.03.19 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →