Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Mehta, Vinod Kumar, JJ
Shree Krishna Steel Traders – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of facts concerning unauthorized tax recovery during stay operations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. responsibility of the department to ensure internal communication of stay orders. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. final direction for refund and systemic reform in stay order management. (Para 9 , 14 , 15) |
O R D E R
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that during the pendency of the statutory appeal, the respondents be restrained from recovering the outstanding demand as the petitioner has a stay in his favour, passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 49(1) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assessing Officer’), Delhi vide order dated 19.01.2024. By way of an application, prayer has also been made that the amount recovered inspite of the stay be ordered to be refunded alongwith interest.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that in spite of the fact that vide the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2024, the Assessing Officer had granted a stay of the remaining demand for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-2022, raised by way of the assessment order dated 26.12.2022, the Centralised Processing Center (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC
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
