Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

C/SCA/8220/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8220 of 2020 ==========================================================MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED VersusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance:MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATHandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 21/08/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH) 1.We have heard Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned counselfor the petitioner and Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counselappearing for the respondent Department. 2.By means of this petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashingof the order dated 23-1-2020 passed by the AssessingAuthority (respondent no.1) requiring the petitioner todeposit 20% of the demand while disposing of hisapplication filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short referred to as “the Act”) as well as the orderdated 18-3-2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner(respondent No.2) confirming the order passed by theAssessing Authority. 3.It is not an issue that it is admitted by the parties thatthe Guidelines as laid down by Instruction No.1914 dated 2-2-1993 although modified from time time but certainprovisions of Clause (C) of the Guidelines for StayingDemand have not been altered so far. Relevant Clause (C)(v)of the Guidelines for Staying Demand reads as follows:- “(v)While considering an application undersection 220(6), the Assessing Officer shouldconsider all relevant factors having a bearing on thedemand raised and communicate his decision in theform of a speaking order.” 4.In the present case, upon a perusal of both the ordersdated 23-1-2020 and 18-3-2020, we find that they are non-speaking. According to Mr. Soparkar, a detailed applicationwas given under section 220(6) of the Act elaborating all thereasons on the basis of which a complete stay order wasbeing sought but the authorities without dealing with any ofthe grounds has passed a completely non-speaking order inviolation of the Instructions and the Guidelines issued bythe Department. 5.In that view of the matter, we allow this petition settingaside both the orders and directing the Assessing Authority(respondent No.1) to pass a fresh order in accordance withlaw taking into consideration the observations made aboveand the applicable Guidelines within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order by email byany of the parties, the petitioner or the Department, as thecase may be. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA (J. B. PARDIWALA, J)