1. Appeal concerning the mandatory pre-deposit amount required for filing an appeal before a quasi-judicial authority. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1537
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rohinton Fali Nariman, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6850 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19027 of 2018 @ Diary No. 18927 of 2018)
Decided On : 20-07-2018
Important Points
The administrative Circular does not restrict the authority of the Commissioner, and authorities can grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20% pending appeal.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Authority and Administrative Circulars
Headnote
Delay - Leave granted - Clarification on administrative Circular and authority of the Commissioner
Fact of the Case:
The court heard the appellant's argument that the administrative Circular should not fetter the Commissioner as it is a quasi-judicial authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified that in cases like the present, authorities can grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20% pending appeal.
Issues: Interpretation of administrative Circular and authority of the Commissioner
Ratio Decidendi: The administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner, and authorities can grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20% pending appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal is disposed of accordingly, and pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Manish Pushkarna, Praveena Gautam, Advocates and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR., for the Petitioner; Mr. Deepak Chopra, Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Mr. Amit Srivastava and Mr. Ankul Goyal, Advocates and Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR., for the Respondent
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Manish Pushkarna, Praveena Gautam, Advocates and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR., for the Petitioner; Mr. Deepak Chopra, Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Mr. Amit Srivastava and Mr. Ankul Goyal, Advocates and Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR., for the Respondent
Table of Contents
2. Contention that administrative circulars cannot restrict the discretionary powers of a Commissioner acting as a quasi-judicial authority. (Para 3 )
3. Administrative circulars do not operate as a fetter on a Commissioner exercising quasi-judicial functions. (Para 3 )
4. Quasi-judicial authorities may grant pre-deposit orders for amounts less than the prescribed percentage based on the facts of individual cases. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal disposed of with clarification that authorities may grant deposit orders of less than 20% pending appeal. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does an administrative circular bind a Commissioner acting as a quasi-judicial authority?
No, an administrative circular does not operate as a fetter on a Commissioner when they are acting as a quasi-judicial authority. (Para 3 )
7. Can a quasi-judicial authority grant a pre-deposit amount lower than the prescribed 20% for an appeal?
Yes, authorities are permitted to grant deposit orders for an amount less than 20% pending appeal, based on the facts of individual cases. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Having heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant, and giving credence to the fact that he has argued before us that the administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority, we only need to clarify that in all cases like the present, it will be open to the authorities, on the facts of individual cases, to grant deposit orders of a lesser amount than 20%, pending appeal.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
