Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Skyline Engineering Contracts (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions seeking refund of excess tax demand. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. contention regarding improper tax recovery process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's view on adherence to cbdt rules. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. entitlement to seek only 20% pre-deposit during appeals. (Para 12) |
| 5. order for refund of excess amount and disposal of petitions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
1. The appeals have been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. The matter has been taken up for hearing today as 20th August, 2021 was declared a holiday.
3. Present writ petitions being W.P.(C) 6172/2021 and 6200/2021 have been filed seeking virtually similar reliefs. The prayers sought in one of the writ petition being W.P.(C) 6200/2021 are reproduced herein below:
"a) to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or an order directing the respondents to return/refund an amount of Rs.2,24,50,412/- plus interest to the petitioner which was recovered in excess of 20% of the total disputed demand for the assessment year 2015-16;
b) .......
c) ......
d) to issue directions to the Respondent No.2 to hear the appeal relating to assessment year 2015-16 and dispose of the same expediti
Assessment authorities must adhere to statutory guidelines that allow only 20% recovery of disputed demand pending appeal, requiring justifications for any higher recovery.
The government must adhere to its own regulations regarding tax demand recovery, and any excess recovery without following prescribed procedures is deemed invalid.
Tax authorities must adhere to their own prescribed procedures regarding refund adjustments, enforcing taxpayers' rights against undue excess recoveries.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing officer is mandated to grant stay on recovery of the balance disputed outstanding tax demand till disposal of the first appeal o....
The government is bound to follow the rules and standards they themselves had set, and the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the app....
The court upheld that tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines on stay of demand, mandating refund of adjustments exceeding 20% of disputed tax during appeal.
The Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, and the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of....
Tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines regarding tax recovery, including limiting recovery to 20% of disputed demands during appeal, failing which excess recovery is invalid.
Tax authorities must follow established procedures when collecting disputed amounts, ensuring fairness and adherence to guidelines for stay of demands pending appeal decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing Officer must adhere to the provisions of the Office Memorandums and grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on pa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
