THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/251/2005HC BombayHCBM01002250200502 February 2005Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs was not erroneous or perverse. The Court noted that the General Manager of the Government Milk Scheme, Pune (the petitioner's representative), had categorically agreed to the condition of depositing Rs. 50 lakhs in two installments before the Tribunal. This agreement formed the basis on which the Tribunal had granted a stay on the recovery of the balance outstanding tax demand until the appeal was decided. The High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's order in light of this agreement. Consequently, the writ petition seeking to stay the ITAT's order was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The State of Maharashtra, through the General Manager of the Government Milk Scheme, Pune, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a stay of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune. The ITAT's order dated November 9, 2004, had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs in two installments. This deposit was a condition for staying the recovery of the balance outstanding tax demand, which amounted to approximately Rs. 1.35 crores, pending the disposal of the appeal before the ITAT. The General Manager had reportedly agreed to this deposit condition before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as a condition for staying the recovery of the balance tax demand of Rs. 1.35 crores was erroneous or perverse. This issue turns on the Tribunal's power to impose conditions for stay under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner (State of Maharashtra) sought to challenge the ITAT's order, implying it was aggrieved by the deposit condition. However, the specific arguments made by the petitioner before the High Court are not detailed, beyond seeking a stay of the ITAT's order. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents (Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.) likely defended the ITAT's order. Their arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but their presence and the dismissal of the petition suggest they did not concede to the petitioner's plea for a stay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO. 251 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO. 251 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO. 251 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ..Petitioner. V/s. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.P.Deshpande, A.G.P. for the petitioner. Mr.R.V.Desai, senior counsel with Mrs.S.V.Bharucha for respondents. CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2005. DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2005. DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking stay of the order of deposit directed to be made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune by its order dated 9/11/2004. The Tribunal by the above order has clearly recorded that Mr.D.V. Khilare, the General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Pune, petitioner No.4 had categorically agreed before the Tribunal to the condition to deposit Rs.50 lakhs by two instalments, on the basis of which the recovery of the balance outstanding amount was stayed till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. The tax demand by the respondents is almost Rs.1.35 crores. In view of the fact that the petitioner had agreed to deposit Rs.50 lakhs by two instalments, we do not find anything erroneous and perverse in the order of the Tribunal. Hence petition stands dismissed. (S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →