Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 934 - HC - Income TaxStay of demand - petitioner directed by fourth respondent to deposits 20% of the demand - discretionary power exercised by the second respondent reducing deposit 15% of the demand - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in a catena of precedents laid down the circumstances under which, this Court can interfere with orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittoor and others [2019 (3) TMI 1690 - SUPREME COURT] has succinctly laid down the principles of judicial review of administrative decisions. As held that this Court shall interfere with administrative decisions only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality and irrationality. That is when the error of law on the face of decision goes to the root of the decision, and this Court does not sit in appeal over such decisions. A reading of Ext. P8 order demonstrates that the second respondent has very cautiously and carefully considered the matter and has passed a reasoned order, without going into the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the demand to stay the recovery proceedings. No manifest error or illegality in Ext. P8 order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
|