Held, unequals are being treated equally in that no differentiation is made by the third proviso between the assessees who are responsible for delaying the proceedings and assessees who are not so responsible- since the objective was automatic vacation of stay granted on the completion of 365 days whether or not the assessee is responsible for the delay caused in hearing the appeal, such object being itself discriminatory, held is liable to be struck down as violating Art. 14 of the Constitution i.e. there would be automatic vacation of the stay after 365 days, even where assessee is not responsible for delay in hearing the appeal, is invalid. Thus, held, third proviso to S. 254(2-A) shall be read down i.e. it is to be read without the word “even” and the words “is not” after the words “delay in disposing of the appeal”. That is to say, the net result, held, is that any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.
(2021) 7 SCC 413 [CIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.,]