Full Text
SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO. LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Advs.
Respondent
Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. St. Counsel and
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. St. Counsel and Mr. Vikrant Ashok Maheshwari, Adv.
SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO. LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra and Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Advs.
Respondent
Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. St. Counsel and
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. St. Counsel and Mr.Vikrant
Ashok Maheshwari, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER , 20.02.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Issue notice. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri accepts notice.
2. The petitioner's grievance is that its appeals before the Tribunal for previous Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08 to 2011-12 are W.P.(C) 1535/2017 2017:DHC:9020-DB pending and that as a consequence of the orders of stay, no recovery proceedings were initiated. In these circumstances, when for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) proceeded according to the previous pattern and held that the petitioner was liable to taxation because it had a P.E. and proceeded to determine its liability, the same protection ought to be given during the pendency of this appeal. However, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (ITAT) by the impugned orderdated 31.01.2017 inter alia observed as follows:
W.P.(C) 1535/2017 Page[2] of 4 J -^7 any permanent establishment or does not have any asset in India. This question remained unanswered but it was submitted that assessee is a multinational company carrying on many projects in India. The AR did not offer any sum as predeposit for stay of demand in dispute. Even otherwise, financial hardship or any evidence of coercive action from was not.demonstrated. Therefore, looking to the interest ofthe revenue in the matter we are not inclined to grant stay in the present matter for above two years i.e. 2011-12 and 2012-13. In view of this we reject these stay petitions however in the interest of justice, we direct the registry to fix the hearing of above appeals for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 on priority basis for hearing along with appeal for earlier years on 27.04.2017. We direct the parties to not to seek adjournment as substantial revenue is involved in these appeals. We order accordingly. "
3. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties. Between 12.01.2015 and 09.01.2017, the petitioner's appeal was listed on 21 occasions before the ITAT. Apparently, according to the record, the Bench did not function on four occasions and on other three occasions; the appeal could not be taken up on account of unscheduled public holiday and on the other 13 occasions, the revenue requested for adjournment.
4. Having regard to these developments and the state of the record, the Court is of the opinion that the ITAT should hear the parties and decide all appeals pertaining to the petitioner for AYs 2007- 08 to 2013-14 at the earliest convenient date and deliver its final W.P.(C) 1535/2017 Page 3 of[4] \A orders latest by 31®' May, 2017. In the meanwhile, the respondent shall maintain the status quo and shall not take coercive action.
5. The parties shall be present before the ITAT on 06.03.2017 which shall pass appropriate directions for further hearing of the appeal giving convenient bulk dates. The order - shall be communicated directly to the Registrar of the ITAT for appropriate action.
6. The writ petitions are disposed off in the above terms.
7. Master. Order dastl to the parties, under the signature of the Coun S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMIWAZIRI, J FEBRUARY 20, 2017