9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Present writ petitions being W.P.(C) 6172/2021 and 6200/2021 have been filed seeking virtually similar reliefs. The prayers sought in one of the writ petition being W.P.(C) 6200/2021 are reproduced herein below:- "a) to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or an order directing the respondents to return/refund an amount of Rs. 2,24,50,412/- plus interest to the petitioner which was recovered in excess of 20% of the total disputed demand for the assessment year 2015-16; b) ....... c) ...... d) to issue directions to the Respondent No.2 to hear the appeal relating to assessment year 2015-16 and dispose of the same expeditiously; e) .........." 4. On 07th July, 2021, the learned predecessor Division Bench had passed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2,92,09,436/- has been recovered till now. Mr. Salil states that the amount recovered, in percentage terms, is 86.43%. 5. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Sunil Agarwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 6. Mr. Agarwal says that he will revert with instructions. In case instructions are received to resist the writ petition, a counter-affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing. 7. Till the next date of hearing, subject to the verification of the aforesaid figures, status quo will be maintained qua further recovery(ies). 8. List the matter on 02.08.2021." 5. Today, Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned counsel for Revenue states that he would like to argue the matters without filing any counte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . dated 29-2-2016 stood revised to 20% of the disputed demand, where the demand was contested before CIT(A)." 7. Per contra, Mr. Agarwal, learned standing counsel for the respondents/Revenue states that Assessing Officer vide order dated 31st July, 2021 had directed CPC Bangalore not to adjust any further refund in future against the demand raised by way of the impugned assessment orders. He also states that the Assessing Officer has separately requested the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [now 'National Faceless Appeal Centre'] to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 8. Mr. Agarwal also refers to paragraph 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 which states that pre-deposit of 20% is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is bound to follow the rules and standards they themselves had set on pain of their action being invalidated. [See: Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.; 1975 (3) SCR 82 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. 1979 SCR (3) 1014]. 10. This Court is also of the view that the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 read with office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017 stipulate that the Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. In the event, the Assessing Officer is of the view that the payment of a lump sum amount higher than 20% is warranted, then the Assessing Officer will have to give reasons to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
