Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 273 (PAT)

Indian Oil Corporation. Ltd. v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-09

MRIDULA MISHRA, NAGENDRA RAI

body2004
Judgment 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners undertakes to deposit six sets of additional court fee by tomorrow, failing which this application shall stand rejected so far other six cases are concerned and it will remain confined to ST-SL-137 of 2002-03 only. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the highest tax paying concern under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act, is the petitioner before this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 26.2.2004 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the prayer for stay of demand as well as attachment of bank accounts made by the respondents authorities in exercise of power under section 27 of the Bihar Finance Act with regard to four assessment years i.e. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 regarding which revision applications are pending as well as affirming the orders passed by the appellate authority in Misc. PT-14 of 2004 and Misc. PT-15 of 2004, by which the appellate authority has rejected the prayer for stay of the said orders during the pendency of the appeal before it. 3. Both the parties devoted time in making submissions with regard to the merits of their claim and each learned counsel justified his stand, but we cannot go into the question of merit for the simple reason that the matter is subjudice before the Tribunal and the appellate authority and any observation by us touching the merits of the case will harm any of the parties against which observation will be made. The question confined is as to whether stay is to be granted or not during the pendency of revision applications and appeals. 4. While considering the question of stay, the Court has to balance between the interest of the assessee as well as the interest of the State. Taking too lenient view in the stay matter will also not serve any public interest and being too strict, as urged on behalf of Mr. Dutta, learned S.C.4, will also not serve any purpose. In such a situation, the Court has to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The total disputed liability as determined by various orders for the aforesaid periods i.e. 1996-97 to 1999- 2000 comes to about Rs. 123.53 crores. The major portion of the dispute is with regard to stock transfer. 5. In such a situation, the Court has to take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The total disputed liability as determined by various orders for the aforesaid periods i.e. 1996-97 to 1999- 2000 comes to about Rs. 123.53 crores. The major portion of the dispute is with regard to stock transfer. 5. According to the petitioners, as there was stock transfer, there is no liability to pay tax under the Bihar Finance Act, whereas according to the State, the assertion of stock transfer has not been found correct and during assessment proceeding certain declaration forms were filed by the petitioners to justify the assertion made but were not accepted by the authority. 6. No opinion can be expressed by this Court as to whether those forms can be accepted or not as the same has to be decided by the authority while determining the final liability. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the fact that there is no chance that the petitioners will run away after final determination of liability, we are of the view that it is a fit case where interim order should be passed. As the accounts of the petitioners have been attached, the same should be released forthwith and if the petitioners deposit Rs. 23 crores within three weeks from today the recovery of the remaining amount shall remain stayed till the disposal of the matter by the appellate authority as well as the tribunal. Failure to deposit the money by the petitioners will result in the dismissal of this writ application. 7. As the matter involves huge amount, we are of the view that the tribunal and the appellate authority should finally dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Unnecessary adjournments asked for on behalf of any of the parties should not be given by the authorities and the time schedule should be maintained for disposal of the matter. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application stands disposed of.