9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 457 - SC - Indian LawsPartial stay of realization of demand raised against the appellant granted - Held that - As it is not in dispute that the directed amounts have been deposited. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition has been heard and the judgments are awaited. Thus we direct that till the disposal of the writ petition there shall not be requirement for any further deposit. It is made clear that by giving this protection we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues:
Granting partial stay of realization of demand against the appellant based on a High Court judgment. Analysis: The appellant challenged the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which granted partial stay of the demand raised against the appellant. The High Court directed the appellant to pay 50% of the disputed tax within six weeks to receive interim stay. The appellant, being a sick company, argued against the payment directed by the High Court. On the other hand, the respondent-State contended that the Act permits the levy, and interference by the Court in revenue matters should be avoided. The principles governing the grant of stay in revenue matters were discussed, emphasizing the need for judicial exercise of discretion. The Court referred to previous cases like Silliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, Samarias Trading Co. v. S. Samuel, and Assistant Collector v. Dunlop India Ltd. to outline the applicable principles. It was highlighted that while a prima facie case is essential, requiring the assessee to pay the demand without merit should be avoided. The Court stressed the importance of considering factual scenarios and public interest before passing orders on stay applications. The Court noted a trend of casually disposing of stay applications without proper analysis. In a specific case, the Court had directed the appellant to deposit certain amounts, which were duly paid. The Court, considering the circumstances, directed that no further deposit was required until the disposal of the writ petition, clarifying that this decision did not express any opinion on the case's merits. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of accordingly, providing relief to the appellant until the writ petition's final decision.
|
