9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. v/s Central Bureau of Investigation, in Criminal Appeal no.1375-1376/2013 &Ors., judgment dated 28th March 2018, have said that stay of proceedings beyond a period of six months cannot be allowed. He submitted, granting stay of recovery of outstanding demand amounts to stay of proceedings. Relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v/s Dunlop India Ltd., Vol. 1985 AIR 330. He submitted, stay cannot be granted merely because the person seeking stay has made out prima-facie case. He submitted, balance of convenience has also to be seen since it involves public interest. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, on the pretext of non-disposal of the appeal, which is not due to the fault of the Department, the assessee is seeking extension of stay from time-to-time. Thus, he submitted, the order dated 26th October 2018, extending stay should be vacated. 3. Shri Madhur Agrawal, learned Authorised Representative, submitted, what the Department seeks by filing the present application is, review of its own order which is not permissible under the statute. He submitted, if the Department in any way is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch, hence, the plea of the Department for modification/variation of the order dated 26th October 2018, should not be entertained. He submitted, it is open to the Department to make these submissions when the assessee seeks extension of stay again and at that time the Department can ask for modification/vacation of the earlier orders. Finally, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, while considering similar application made by the Department in another case, the Tribunal has dismissed the application as not maintainable. In this context, he relied upon the order of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s M/s. Piramal Enterprise Ltd. in M.A. no.143/Mum./2019, dated 15th March 2019. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. At the outset, we propose to deal with learned Departmental Representative's contention that the order passed extending stay needs to be modified/vacated since the initial order passed by the Tribunal on 10th November 2017, granting stay is a non-speaking order. Before we proceed to deal with the aforesaid contention of the learned Departmental Representative, it is necessary to look into the grounds mentioned in the Misc. Application on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. (supra), it needs to be observed, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision was with regard to stay of proceedings relating to Civil and Criminal trial. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that proceedings relating to Civil and Criminal trial should not be stayed for more than six months. However, in assessee's case we are concerned with stay recovery of outstanding demand pending disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal has only stayed recovery of the outstanding demand subject to certain condition and appeal proceedings have not been stayed. In fact, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd. (supr) has negated the contention of the Department to the effect that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. (supra) stay of recovery of demand cannot be extended beyond the period of six months. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court are as under:- "4. We are prima facie of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal cannot be attributed to the assessee also. Further, Department's contention that the financial position of the assessee is good is not backed by any supporting evidence. Be that as it may, while extending the stay vide order dated 26th October 2018, the Tribunal has taken note of the attending facts and circumstances which is evident from the facts narrated in Para-2 of the order. That being the case, the decision so taken by the Tribunal cannot be subject matter of review by the Tribunal. If the Department, in any manner, was aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, they could have approached the higher court seeking appropriate relief/remedy instead of filing a Misc. Application seeking review of the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. At this stage, we must observe, when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is faced with stiff challenge to reduce the huge pendency of litigations, such frivolous and ill-conceived applications, like the present Misc. Application, do not benefit anyone, rather, it results in unnecessary wastage of valuable time of the court which could otherwise have been gainfully utilized in more productive and constructive judicial work. It is rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariety of case law referred to above and discussed above. As regards the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. (supra) we noted that the context of the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was criminal jurisdiction regarding the Prevention of Corruption Act and the cases pending at trial stage and the proceedings stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. This issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. vide paras 36 & 37 as under: - "36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-apprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
