THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUDHAR HOTELS P. LTD and ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the ITAT had failed to notice the part of the Division Bench's order dated 04/04/2017 which rejected the stay application. The Court found this omission significant, especially given the similarity of the substantial questions of law involved. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the ITAT's order dated 09/02/2018 was set aside. The ITAT was directed to decide the stay application afresh within one week, taking into account the Division Bench's order. Alternatively, the ITAT was given the option to decide the appeal itself within two months. The ratio decidendi is that a lower appellate authority must consider and give due weight to prior orders of higher courts, particularly when they deal with similar issues and parties. The Court did not decide the merits of the stay application itself, leaving it for the ITAT to consider.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-1, Jodhpur, filed these writ petitions challenging an order dated 09/02/2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had allowed a stay application, granting a stay on the demand for Wealth Tax for assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13. The petitioner contended that the ITAT failed to consider that a Division Bench of the High Court had specifically rejected a stay application in a related matter (D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2017) for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, despite the substantial questions of law being similar. The respondent, Marudhar Hotels P. Ltd., argued that the ITAT had noted partial payment of demand and regular payment of outstanding dues.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing a stay application for Wealth Tax demand for assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13, when a Division Bench of this Court had previously rejected a stay application in a similar matter for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT had taken note of the fact that 21.57% of the total demand had already been paid, and that the respondent was regularly paying the outstanding demand, and that there were distinguishable facts. The assessee relied on no specific authorities or precedents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the ITAT had allowed the stay application without noticing that the stay application in D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2017 was specifically rejected by the Division Bench while admitting the appeal, despite the substantial questions of law being relevant and similar.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 14/03/2018
All the above writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order as the issue involved is identical. For convenience, the facts are being taken from SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3354/2018. By way of the present writ petition, the order dated 09/02/2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur vide which the stay application seeking stay of the demand in respect of the Wealth Tax Assessment for the (3 of 4) [CW-3354/2018]
assessment years 2008-09 to 2012-13 was allowed has been assailed. While praying for setting aside the order dated 09/02/2018, it is contended that the impugned order staying the demand was passed in view of the D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2017 having been admitted by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04/04/2017 qua the demand for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 involving the substantial questions of law which were also the relevant questions of law before the Appellate Tribunal. Whereas, the perusal of the order dated 04/04/2017 passed in D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2017 shows that while admitting the same, the stay application was specifically rejected. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the stay application without taking note the fact that the stay application in D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2017 was specifically rejected by the Division Bench, while admitting the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, while vehemently opposing the present writ petition submitted that the Appellate Tribunal had taken note of the fact that 21.57% of the total demand had already been paid and that the respondent in any case is regularly paying the outstanding demand and that there were distinguishable facts. Heard. It is evident that the part of the order dated 04/04/2017 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the stay has not been noticed.
(4 of 4) [CW-3354/2018]
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 09/02/2018 is set aside and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur is directed to decide the stay application afresh within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law after taking into account the order dated 04/04/2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court dismissing the stay application . The respondent will be at liberty to raise all the pleas as raised herein before the Appellate Tribunal while deciding the said stay application. In the alternative, the appeal itself may be decided within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order or from the next date already fixed before the Appellate Tribunal. A copy of the order be supplied to learned counsel for the respondent under the seal and signature of the Court Master. (NIRMALJIT KAUR)J. Sanjaysolanki,pa
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
