RAJAN BHALCHANDRA DATAR vs. MR S P PADMAKAR, ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/2103/2010HC BombayHCBM01009874201017 March 2010Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the stay application within two weeks from the date of the order, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the demand for income tax dues pertaining to assessment year 2007-2008 shall not be enforced until the stay application is disposed of and for one week thereafter, or until the appellate authority communicates its order. The Court deemed it unnecessary to express any view on the rival contentions in light of these directions. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The specific reasoning for the revenue's initial denial of stay is not detailed, nor is the ultimate outcome of the stay application discussed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajan Bhalchandra Datar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated March 10, 2010, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Nasik. This order had declined the assessee's application for a stay on the recovery of income tax dues for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee had filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was scheduled for hearing on May 5, 2010. The application for stay was part of the memo of appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The High Court was informed of these developments during the hearing of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appeal process concerning the stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, informed the Court that an application for stay had been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as part of the appeal memo. The primary concern was the recovery of income tax dues while the appeal was pending. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order declining the stay application, which was the subject of the writ petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2103 OF 2010 Rajan Bhalchandra Datar ..Petitioner Versus Mr.S.P. Padmakar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – II, Nasik & Another ..Respondents. Mr.Chirag Balsara with Ms.Deshpande and Mr.R.P. Jain i/by M/s.RES Legal for the petitioner. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE     : 17th March 2010. P.C. : 1. The petition is directed against an order dated 10th March 2010 passed by   the   Assistant   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,   Circle   ­   II,   Nasik   declining   an application for stay of the recovery of a demand towards income tax dues.   The Court has been informed that the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment is fixed for hearing on 5th May 2010.  During the course of the hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has stated before the Court that an application for stay has been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); the prayer for stay being part of the memo of appeal.  We direct that the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall dispose of the application for stay within  a  period   of  two   weeks from  today  after   furnishing  to   the  assessee   an opportunity of being heard.  Until the application for stay is disposed of and for a period of one week from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority, the demand which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 2007­2008 shall not be enforced. 2. In view of the directions which have been issued herein above, it is not necessary for this Court to express any view one way or the other on the rival contentions.  The petition is accordingly disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →