Creamline Dairy Products Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I
[Citation -2020-LL-0225-85]

Citation 2020-LL-0225-85
Appellant Name Creamline Dairy Products Limited
Respondent Name The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/02/2020
Assessment Year 2017-18
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags stay of recovery • quantum of tax
Bot Summary: The petitioner herein has assailed in this Writ Petition the order dt.14.02.2020 passed by 1st respondent granting stay of recovery of Rs.8,24,81,059/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18 as determined in the Assessment Order dt.31.12.2019 passed by 2nd respondent and directing petitioner to pay 20 of the tax demand in two equal monthly instalments in view of the financial difficulties being faced by petitioner. The counsel for petitioner contended that the Assessment Order was itself passed on the last day on which the assessment was to be completed by the 2nd respondent; that there are several errors in the said order; that the financial position of petitioner is not good; and that the impugned order be set aside on the said grounds. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, states that the impugned order has only directed payment of 20 of the tax demanded; that substantial time has also been granted to comply with MSR,J TA,J ::2:: wp39892020 the condition imposed by 1st respondent; that 1st respondent has been very generous in asking petitioner to pay only 20 instead of more of the tax demanded pursuant to the Assessment Order; and that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Having regard to the financial difficulties being allegedly faced by petitioner and keeping in mind the fact that only 20 of the tax demanded was asked to be paid by 1st respondent as a condition for not enforcing the entire demanded amount as mentioned in the assessment order, we do not wish to interfere with the quantum of tax to be deposited i.e., 20 disputed tax as fixed by 1st respondent in the assessment order. We are inclined to grant to petitioner four more weeks time to comply with the payment of 20 of the tax demanded as per the order of the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions : The petitioner shall pay to respondents on or before 31.03.2020 a sum of Rs.60 lakhs; and the balance shall be paid in three equal monthly installments on or before 30.06.2020; in default of payment of any of these amounts, this order shall stand vacated; MSR,J TA,J ::3:: wp39892020 in the event the petitioner complies with the said order, there shall be stay of recovery of the deposited tax till the disposal of the Appeal by the CIT against the Assessment Order dt.31.12.2019 passed by 2nd respondent. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO and HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD Writ Petition No.3989 of 2020 ORDER : (per Hon ble M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Heard counsel for petitioner, and Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, for respondents. 2. petitioner herein has assailed in this Writ Petition order dt.14.02.2020 passed by 1st respondent granting stay of recovery of Rs.8,24,81,059/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 as determined in Assessment Order dt.31.12.2019 passed by 2nd respondent and directing petitioner to pay 20% of tax demand in two equal monthly instalments in view of financial difficulties being faced by petitioner. 3. counsel for petitioner contended that Assessment Order was itself passed on last day on which assessment was to be completed by 2nd respondent; that there are several errors in said order; that financial position of petitioner is not good; and that impugned order be set aside on said grounds. 4. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, states that impugned order has only directed payment of 20% of tax demanded; that substantial time has also been granted to comply with MSR,J & TA,J ::2:: wp_3989_2020 condition imposed by 1st respondent; that 1st respondent has been very generous in asking petitioner to pay only 20% instead of more of tax demanded pursuant to Assessment Order; and that impugned order does not warrant any interference. 5. We have noted contentions of both sides. 6. Having regard to financial difficulties being allegedly faced by petitioner and keeping in mind fact that only 20% of tax demanded was asked to be paid by 1st respondent as condition for not enforcing entire demanded amount as mentioned in assessment order, we do not wish to interfere with quantum of tax to be deposited i.e., 20% disputed tax as fixed by 1st respondent in assessment order. 7. However, we are inclined to grant to petitioner four (04) more weeks time to comply with payment of 20% of tax demanded as per order of 1st respondent. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions : (a) petitioner shall pay to respondents on or before 31.03.2020 sum of Rs.60 lakhs; and balance shall be paid in three (03) equal monthly installments on or before 30.06.2020; (b) in default of payment of any of these amounts, this order shall stand vacated; MSR,J & TA,J ::3:: wp_3989_2020 (c) in event petitioner complies with said order, there shall be stay of recovery of deposited tax till disposal of Appeal by CIT (Appeals) against Assessment Order dt.31.12.2019 passed by 2nd respondent. 9. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. No order as to costs. 10. As sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAOJUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD Date: 25.02.2020 Ndr/* Creamline Dairy Products Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I
Report Error