TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 20% of the disputed tax demands and Rs.30,000/-set off of refunds against tax payable. Consequently, this Court directs the respondents 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 2012-13 as well as Rs.30,000/-as mentioned in the intimation under Section 245 of the Act to the petitioner within four weeks. The Appellate Authority is also directed to decide the petitioner s appeal challenging the order dated 27th November, 2019 within a year. - W.P.(C) 6885/2022 & CM Appl. 20970-20971/2022 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned 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 the disposal of first appeal 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 2012-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 show that the case falls in para 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. 11. This Court finds that the order under Section 245 of the Act for adjustments of refunds as well as the order on stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Act do not give any special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
