TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts to verify the facts stated in the writ petition and if it finds them to be true and correct then refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands for the Assessment Year 2018-19 to the petitioner within four weeks. - W.P.(C) 13498/2021 & CM APPL. 42568/2021 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Advocate with Ms. Bandana Grover and Mr. Manish Khurana, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate. J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of ₹ 54,45,128/- which was adjusted in excess of 20% of the total disputed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, unless the case of the assessee falls in the category mentioned in paragraph (B) of the Office Memorandums dated 29th February, 2016 and 31st July, 2017. He states that the Respondents in violation of the provisions of the Office Memorandums recovered the disputed outstanding tax demand in excess of 20% by way of adjustment of refunds due for subsequent assessment years. 4. He states that while 20% of the disputed amount for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was ₹ 29,23,631/- (20% of ₹ 1,46,18,159/-), the respondent adjusted ₹ 83,68,759/- being 57% of the demand and that too without deciding petitioner s application for stay. 5. Issue notice. 6. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efunds as well as the order on stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Act do not give any special/particular reason as to why any amount in excess of 20% of the outstanding demand should be recovered from the petitioner-assessee at this stage in accordance with paragraph 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 4(A) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016, as amended by the office memorandum dated 25th August, 2017. 12. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled to seek pre-deposit of onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
