Goa Shipyard Ltd v. The Assistant Commisioner Of Income Tax, Circle

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 68 OF 2019IN TAX APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2016 GOA SHIPYARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CMDE BHARAT BHUSHAN NAGPAL., Versus ... Applicant THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, MARGAO AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Chaithanya K.K and Mr. Shailesh Redkar, Advocates for theApplicant. Ms. T. Ferreira, holding for Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, StandingCounsel for the Respondents. -Coram:R. D. DHANUKA &PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.-Date:27th March 2019 P.C.: By this Civil Application, the Applicant/Assessee seeks astay of the recovery of demand pursuant to the Order dated10.12.2018 during the pendency of Tax Appeal No. 30/2016. 2. By an Order dated 19.09.2016 passed by this Court, theTax Appeal No. 30/2016 has been admitted on varioussubstantial questions of law, formulated in the said order. It is the case of the Applicant that the Assessing Officer has wronglydisallowed the TDS credit to the full extent, erroneously. TheTax Appeal against the order passed by the I.T.A.T. is alreadyadmitted and is pending before this Court. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that an amount of more than Rs. 6 crores of the Applicant isalready lying with the Revenue. The Respondent has raised afresh demand of Rs. 2,18,54,040/- with the Order dated10.12.2018, in furtherance of the earlier demand. It is submittedby the learned Counsel that even if the Tax Appeal filed by theApplicant is dismissed by this Court, the liability of theApplicant would be at most in the sum of Rs. 2 crores in all, andeven in that event, the Applicant would be entitled to a refund ofthe substantial amount from the revenue. 4. Learned Counsel for the Revenue states that she has beeninstructed to make a statement before this Court that if this Courtproposes to grant any stay of the recovery of demand, the sameshall be on condition of the Applicant depositing 50% of thedemand notice. Learned Counsel for the Revenue did not makeany other submission before this Court as to why in the facts andcircumstances of this case, the Applicant shall not be grantedstay without depositing any further amount. 5. In our prima facie view, there is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant. TheApplicant is a Government of India Undertaking. Substantialamount of TDS claimed by the Applicant, is disallowed by theRevenue. Such amount is already lying deposited with theRevenue. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to grant unconditional stay for recovery of demand,pursuant to the Order dated 10.12.2018. It is orderedaccordingly. 7. The Civil Application is disposed of in the aforesaidterms. There shall be no orders as to costs. Parties to act on theauthenticated copy of the order. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. Dv R. D. DHANUKA, J.