Sundram Fasteners Limited Represented by its Chief Financial Officer S.Meenakshisundaram vs The Deputy Commissioner (CT)-IV Large tax Payers Unit, & Anr.

Mr.K.Venaktesh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken

up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 17.03.2017, rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of

time for making the deposit of Rs.4,50,28,011/- by four weeks from 29.03.2017.

Heard both sides.

The petitioner is a public limited company. An order of assessment was made by the first respondent in respect of assessment year 2015-2016.

Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, the second respondent herein. They also filed

stay petition for grant of stay of collection of balance amount of tax, pending disposal of the appeal. On 28.02.2017, the said stay petition was

disposed of by granting stay for six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, subject to a condition that the petitioner should

pay 25% of the disputed tax, which arise to Rs.4,50,28,011/- on or before 29.03.2017 and to furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the

Assessing Officer for the balance amount of tax. By expressing certain financial difficulties, the petitioner made an application for extension of time

for making such deposit of 25% of the disputed tax on or before 29.03.2017. The petitioner sought further four weeks time from the said last date.

The said request was rejected by passing the impugned order on the reason that if further time is granted, it will adversely impact the tax collection.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not questioning the condition imposed by the second respondent

and on the other hand, due to certain financial difficulties being experienced, the petitioner wants only four weeks further time to make such

deposit. Therefore, he contended that the reasoning of the second respondent to refuse the request of the petitioner is not factually correct.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that when already time is granted to the petitioner, he should have complied with the order within

such time.

The petitioner is not disputing the condition imposed, while granting an order of interim stay by the Appellate Authority. But they are only

requesting further four weeks time to comply with the condition, that too only in respect of deposit of 25% of the tax liability. I do not think that

there will be any adverse impact on the tax collection, if such time is granted to the petitioner, taking note of the financial constraint, as expressed in

their petition filed before the 2nd respondent.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently the petitioner is permitted to make the deposit of

Rs.4,50,28,011/- on or before 30.04.2017. It is made clear, that the petitioner should not seek for further time on any account and it is also made

clear that the petitioner should comply with the second condition namely furnishing of Bank Guarantee immediately on receipt of the copy of this

order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.