TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court, nor the observations made in the said judgment in the context of civil and criminal litigation can be imported in present set of quasi judicial proceedings. The power of the Assessing Officer to review the situation every six months, would not authorized him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances. Revenue prayed for time for filing reply. By way of ad-interim relief, the impugned orders dated 22.1.2019 and 11.2.2019 are stayed. The respondents are prevented from carrying out any further recoveries pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y till disposal of the appeal. 2. Thereafter, once again the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order dated 22.1.2019 in which he observed as under:- Please refer to your letter dated 21.12.2018 in your response to intimation u/s. 245. In this regard, you are requested to refer to CBDT's Officer Memorandum [F.No. 404/72/93-ITCC] dated 29.2.2016 wherein it is clearly mentioned at S. No. 4(E)(ii) that the Assessing Officer may reserve the right to review the order after expiry of reasonable period (say 6 months); and at S. No. 4.(E)(iii) that the Assessing Officer may reserve the right to adjust refunds, if any, against the demand. It is also to be mentioned that various decisions referred by you in your letter dated 21.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5% (now modified to 20%) of the amount is to be followed in all the cases nor the stay can continue in perpetuity and the Board itself required that the A.Os. shall reserve the right to review the order and adjust refunds. Any stay granted in violation of these instructions amounts to non-observations of the directions of the CBDT by the A.O. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order of Asian Resurfacing (supra) have held that no stay can continue beyond six months unless it is extended by a speaking order. The assessee's arguments that the same applies to a trial is not correct as the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order and issued the directions in order to cut down the delay in judicial proceedings of civil and criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the Act. 4. We are prima facie of the view that the Revenue Authorities committed serious error. Against the total demand arising out of the order of assessment of ₹ 205 crore, the Assessing Officer has already recovered a total of ₹ 140 crores by now through different means. There is no allegation that the petitioner is responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner. Merely relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd (supra), Revenue Authorities now held a belief that any stay against the recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months. This is neither the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court, nor the observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
