AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25-1-2010 passed by the Tribunal in Stay Application Nos. 93 to 100/Del/2009 relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The entire controversy is with regard to the amount of deposit directed by the said Tribunal.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner arguments on the stay application were concluded on 22-1-2002 (sic) and order itself was pronounced on the said date in open Court. As per the Petitioner the order carried a direction that the Petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 5 crores in two equal instalments of Rs. 2.5 crores each to be paid on 15-2-2010 and 15-3-2010 respectively. On such arrangements being made, the balance outstanding tax was stayed upto 26-3-2010, and the appeals were directed to be heard on 22-3-2010. However, when the order was pronounced again on 25-1-2010, the Tribunal directed that the Petitioner shall deposit 20 per cent of the outstanding demand in two equal instalments falling due on dated 15-2-2010 and 15-3-2010. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that 20 per cent of the outstanding demand would be approximately Rs. 9.59 crores and, therefore, if this order were to be taken into account, the two equal instalments would be approximately Rs, 4.8 crores each.
He submits that in order to have this corrected, the Petitioner has filed a miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.) for rectification of the purported mistake which, according to the Petitioner, is apparent in the order dated 25-1-2010. The stand taken by the Petitioner in the said rectification application is that while disposing of the stay application, the Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 22-1- 2010, requiring the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2.5 crores by 15-2-2010 and further sum of Rs. 2.5 crores by dated 15-3-2010 and that the appeal filed by the applicant would be heard on 22-3- 2010 on the balance outstanding demand shall be stayed till 26-3-2010.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue submitted that what was pronounced in open court finds mention in the order. He had also requested Mr. R.K. Raina, senior departmental Representative, who was present during the proceedings before the Tribunal to be present before us. On instructions from Mr. R.K. Raina, the learned Counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal had directed the deposit of 20 per cent of the demand and not the deposit of Rs. 5 crore in two equal instalments of Rs. 2.5 crores each.
This, however, is a controversy which would be resolved by the Tribunal in deciding the rectification application, which has been filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition because the rectification application was not listed before the Tribunal prior to 15-2-2010, on which date the first instalment had to be paid. We see that in such a matter where there is a controversy with regard to what was the exact order that was pronounced in open court, the matter should be disposed of on the earliest possible date to obviate any further complications. Consequently, we direct that the Tribunal should take up the hearing of the miscellaneous application filed by the Petitioner on 18-2-2010.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.