Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

$~106 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 3783/2015 and CM No. 6759/2015 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD...... PetitionerThrough:Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha andMs Mehak Gupta versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..... RespondentThrough:Ms Suruchi Aggarwal CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R%20.04.2015 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in stay application No. 104/Del/2015 in I.T.A No.961/Del/2015. By virtue of the said order, the Tribunal has granted conditional stay ofrecovery of the balance amount subject to the petitioner depositing Rs 50 crores withthe revenue on or before 25.04.2015. From the impugned order it appears that there isa disputed demand of approximately Rs 763 crores.The learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that out of the demand raised by the revenue, a substantial partamounting to approximately Rs 345 crores was based on issues already decided infavour of the assessee either by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or by theTribunal or by the High Court. He further submitted that another part amounting toapproximately Rs 206 crores were based on issues decided by the jurisdictional highcourt / Supreme Court in respect of other parties.The sum and substance of thesubmission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the figure of Rs 50crores which the Tribunal has required the petitioner to deposit is not on a sound basis. He submitted that the gross demand payable after excluding decided issues wouldcome to about Rs 161 crores. The said figure of Rs 161 crores includes interest ofapproximately Rs 59 crores.It is, therefore, submitted that the requirement ofdepositing Rs 50 crores as a condition for the stay is very high compared to thedemand (after excluding decided issues).He submitted that the Tribunal ought tohave considered the above circumstances before fixing the figure of Rs 50 crores. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also on this issue and weare of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner areworth considering and it is for this reason that we remit the matter to the Tribunal toconsider the stay application afresh and pass an order with regard to the condition forstay.To enable the Tribunal to do so, the impugned order is set aside.The stayapplication No. 104/Del/2015 is restored and the same be listed before the Tribunal inthe first instance on 01.05.2015. We make it clear that the revenue shall be permittedto make its stand clear with regard to the demand that is outstanding and they shall beentitled to raise their objections to oppose the grant of stay. The writ petition is allowed as above. Dasti under signature of the Court Master. APRIL 20, 2015SU BADAR DURREZ AHMED, JSANJEEV SACHDEVA, J