TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the concerned authority should have dealt with, while dealing with the petitioner s application for grant of stay. AO has merely gone by the aforementioned CBDT instructions and granted stay, on deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand. In our opinion, if the demand is likely to get scaled down for the reasons adverted to in the petitioner s application, these aspects will have to be taken into account by the concerned authority, while dealing with the application for stay. The concerned authority also needs to bear in mind, the dicta of the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2018 (7) TMI 1905 - SC ORDER] . Requirement to deposit 20% of the demand is not cast in stone. It can be scaled down in a given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon and with Mr Parth Semwal, Jr Standing Counsels. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.20270/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5197/2023 CM No. 20269/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 3. In view of the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Hossain says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. 3.1 Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was attached by virtue of an order dated 05.03.2023 issued by the concerned authority. 7.1 In sum, the petitioner, in terms of the impugned order dated 08.04.2023 would have to deposit Rs. 25,94,01,900/- if it wishes to have the benefit of stay on the demand notice referred to hereinabove. 8. Mr Krishnan has stated, that not only is the petitioner unable to meet the terms of the impugned order, the demand itself is, prima facie, substantially unsustainable. 8.1 It is Mr Krishnan s contention, that the value of the total assets available with the petitioner is approximately Rs. 21.91 crores, and that it has a turnover of nearly Rs. 2.15 crores. 8.2 It is also Mr Krishnan s contention, that the petitioner, presently, has a negati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forementioned CBDT instructions and granted stay, on deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand. 12. In our opinion, if the demand is likely to get scaled down for the reasons adverted to in the petitioner s application, these aspects will have to be taken into account by the concerned authority, while dealing with the application for stay. 12.1 Besides this, the concerned authority also needs to bear in mind, the dicta of the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 18 SCC 447. The requirement to deposit 20% of the demand is not cast in stone. It can be scaled down in a given set of facts. 13. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 08.04.2023. It is ordered accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
