AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners is that all the relevant issues had not been considered as per the circulars issued by the Respondents and by taking into consideration the decisions of the various Courts of law, while disposing of the petitions filed by the Petitioners, for stay of the collection of the disputed tax. In the impugned order, the main reason stated for the rejection of the stay petitions is as follows:
In view of the above position you have no valid ground to claim stay of demand till the disposal of appeal as it can be seen that there are very little chances of success in appeal.
As such, it is clear that the second Respondent had travelled beyond the scope of the stay petitions while disposing of the same.
Even though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has submitted that the Petitioners may be directed to deposit a part of the tax liability assessed against them, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as it is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, they are set aside. It is also found to be appropriate to direct the second Respondent to dispose the appeals pending on his file, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioners shall co-operate fully, in the disposal of the appeals. However, it is made clear that the Respondents shall not take any coercive action against the Petitioners, in respect of tax amounts to be collected from them, based on the impugned demands.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.