TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he disputed tax demands. Consequently, this Court directs the respondent to verify the facts stated in the two writ petitions and if it finds them to be true and correct then to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 to the Petitioner within eight weeks. The respondent is also directed to dispose of petitioner s rectification application dated 10th July, 2020 seeking rectification of the assessment order dated 17th June, 2020 for Assessment Year 2016-17 within eight weeks - in view of the above, the present writ petitions and application stand disposed of. - W.P.(C) 10145/2021& CM APPL. 31296/2021 and W.P.(C) 10149/2021& CM APPL. 31302/2021 - - - Dated:- 14-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29th February, 2016 and 31st July, 2017, prescribing that in cases where an assessee challenges the additions/ disallowances made in the assessment order by way of an appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., CIT(A), and during pendency thereof deposits 20% of the total disputed outstanding tax demand, the assessing officer is empowered to grant stay of recovery of the balance outstanding demand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon payment/ recovery of the standard rate of 20% of the disputed outstanding tax demand, the assessing officer is mandated to grant stay on recovery of the balance disputed outstanding tax demand till disposal of first appeal of the assessee, unless the case of the assessee falls in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- .10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Government 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]. 11.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 pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the petitioner is entitled to refund of adjustments made in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands. 10. Consequently, this Court directs the respondent to verify the facts stated in the two writ petitions and if it finds them to be true and correct then to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 to the Petitioner within eight weeks. The respondent is also directed to dispose of petitioner s rectification application dated 10th July, 2020 seeking rectification of the assessment order dated 17th June, 2020 for Assessment Year 2016-17 within eight weeks. 11. Accordingly, in view of the above, the present writ petitions and application stand disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
