ITAT: Power to grant stay beyond 365 days: Section 254(2A) – Section 254(2A) third proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that extension of stay of demand should be denied beyond 365 days even when the assesseee is not at fault. ITAT may extend stay of demand beyond 365 days if delay in disposing appeal is not attributable to assessee: ITAT should make efforts to decide stay granted appeals expeditiously

The Tribunal passed an order extending stay of recovery of demand beyond the period of 365 days. The department filed a Writ Petition to challenge the said order on the ground that in view of the third proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the stay of demand beyond 365 days.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Petition and held as under:

“(i) It is true that as per third proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period allowed under the first proviso i.e. within 180 days from the date of the stay order or the period or periods extended or allowed under the second proviso, which shall not, in any case, exceed three hundred and sixty-five days, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of such period or periods, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, as such, legislative intent seems to be very clear. However, the purpose and object of providing such time limit is required to be considered. The purpose and object of providing time limit as provided in section 254(2A) of the Act seems to be that after obtaining stay order, the assessee may not indulge into delay tactics and may not proceed further with the hearing of the appeal and may not misuse the grant of stay of demand. At the same time, duty is also cast upon the learned Tribunal to decide and dispose of such appeals in which there is a stay of demand, as early as possible and within the period prescribed under first proviso and second proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act i.e. within maximum period of 365 days.

ii) However, one cannot lost sight of the fact that there may be number of reasons due to which the learned Tribunal is not in a position to decide and dispose of the appeals within the maximum period of 365 days despite their best efforts. There cannot be a legislative intent to punish a person/ assessee though there is no fault of the assessee and/or appellant. The purpose and object of section 254(2A) of the Act is stated herein above and more particularly with a view to see that in the cases where there is a stay of demand, appeals are heard at the earliest by the learned Tribunal and within stipulated time mentioned in section 254(2A) of the Act and the assessee in whose favour there is stay of demand may not take undue advantage of the same and may not adopt delay tactics and avoid hearing of the appeals. However, at the same time, all efforts shall be made by the learned Tribunal to see that in the cases where there is stay of demand, such appeals are heard, decided and disposed of at the earliest and periodically the position/ situation is monitored by the learned Tribunal and the stay is not extended mechanically.

(iii) By section 254(2A) of the Act, it cannot be inferred a legislative intent to curtail/withdraw powers of the Appellate Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond the period of 365 days. However, the aforesaid extension of stay beyond the period of total 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay would always be subject to the subjective satisfaction by the Tribunal and on an application made by the assessee / appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay is not attributable to the appellant / assessee.

iv) As observed hereinabove, the Tribunal can extend the stay granted earlier beyond the period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, however, on being subjectively satisfied by the Tribunal and on an application made by the assessee/appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, is not attributable to the appellant / assessee and that the assessee is not at fault and therefore, while considering each application for extension of stay, the Tribunal is required to consider the facts of each case and arrive at subjective satisfaction in each case whether the delay in not disposing of the appeal within the period of 365 days from the date of initial grant of stay is attributable to the appellant – assessee or not and/or whether the assessee / appellant in whose favour stay has been granted, has cooperated in early disposal of the appeal or not and/or whether there is any delay tactics by such appellant / assessee in whose favour stay has been granted and/or whether such appellant is trying to get any undue advantage of stay in his favour or not. Therefore, while passing such order of extension of stay, Tribunal is required to pass a speaking order on each application and after giving an opportunity to the representative of the revenue – Department and record its satisfaction as stated hereinabove. Therefore, ultimately if the revenue – department is aggrieved by such extension in a particular case having of the view that in a particular case the assessee has not cooperated and/or has tried to take undue advantage of stay and despite the same the Tribunal has extended stay order, revenue can challenge the same before the higher forum/High Court. (Commissioner of Customs and Central Exercise, Ahmedabad vs. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd (2005) 180 ELT 434(SC) & Commissioner vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India in Tax Appeal No.341 of 2014 followed; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited decided on 2.1.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5086 of 2013 not followed)”