Date Of Order 17-07-2017 W.p v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. DATED THIS THE 17[th]DAY OF JULY 2017) BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI 'WRIT PETITION No.13601/2017 (TIT) BETWEEN: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITKDNO.3, RMZ INFINITY TOWER E|v[‘T]FLOOR, OLD MADRAS ROAD |BANGALORE - 560 016.REPRESENIED HEREIN BY IISSENIOR CORPORATE COUNSELMR. THIRUMALBSH GANGAPPA. (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SR. COUNSEL FOR |SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) _ PRTITIONBR AND: 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME TAXRANGE 3(1)(2), ROOM No.228, 2 KLOORBMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROADKORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 O95.RANGE 3(1)(2), ROOM No.228, 2 KLOORBMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROADKORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 O95. 2.THE COMMISSIONEBR OF INCOME TAX - IIIBMTC COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROADKORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 O95.BMTC COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROADKORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 O95. _ RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE|CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 22-03-2017 AT ANNEX-L PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAXAPPELLATE|TRIBUNAL|IN|9.P.495/BANG/2017IN|ITA| 2/7 NO.387/BANG/201/7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 &ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRBLIMINARY HEARING THIS|DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Mr.Percy Pardiwala, er,Counsel for Mr. T. Suryanarayana, Adv. for Petitioner 1. The petitioner-company M/s.Google India Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore, is aggrieved by the interlocutory stayorder dated23.03.2017passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short), ‘B’ Bench,Bengaluru, for the Assessment year 2012-13, whereby,the learned Tribunal has directed in paragraph-18 ofthe impugned order to deposit 50% of the impugned taxdemand and out of such 50% of the tax demand, the.petitioner-company was directed to deposit 20% of thetax demand within seven days of the said order dated22.03.2017 and balance amount shall be paid by thepetitioner within 180 days in six equal installments. Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 3/7 2. The learned Senior counsel Mr.Percy Pardiwalafor the petitioner-company has referred to paragraph-9—of the impugned order and has drawn the attention ofthe Court towards the suggestion of the Bench ofTribunal given to the learned Senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner-assessee that the Tribunal could staythe demand, subject to the condition of payment of 30%.of the total tax demand, which, however, the learnedsenior counsel appearing for the petitioner-company didnotACCePt|andthereupon,discussing|therival contentions and the aspects relevant for grant of interimrelief likeprima-facte-case, balance of convenience and)irreparable loss etc., the Bench of Tribunal had directedin paragraph-18 to deposit 50% of the total tax demandin the manner indicated above. 3. The learned Senior counsel Mr.Pardiwala alsosought to urge contentions on the merits of the case,however, this Court is not inclined to go into the same, Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 4/7 as the appeals are stated to be pending before theTribunal for final hearing and the learned Seniorcounsel for petitioner-assessee also submitted that onone occasion, was even heard by the Bench concernedbut for some practical reasons, the judgment could notbe delivered. The said appeal is stated to be pending forthe last one year along with the connected appealswhich were filed earlier. 4 Since common issues are involved in all thepending appeals and they deserve to be heard by theTribunal itself, this Court would not express anyopinion about the merits of the case at all, leaving it freefor the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with ~the law. The Tribunal is therefore requested to decidethe pending appeals expeditiously, preferably within aperiod of six months from today. | oS. On the question of direction of the learned 4 Since common issues are involved in all thepending appeals and they deserve to be heard by theTribunal itself, this Court would not express anyopinion about the merits of the case at all, leaving it freefor the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with ~the law. The Tribunal is therefore requested to decidethe pending appeals expeditiously, preferably within aperiod of six months from today. | oS. On the question of direction of the learned Tribunal to deposit 50% of the total tax demand, the Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 5/7 learnedSeniorcounselfairlysubmits|that.thepetitioner-company should be allowed to abide by thesuggestion of the Bench of Tribunal as stated inparagraph-5 of the impugned order and the petitioner-company would be willing to deposit 30% of the total taxdemand as indicated by the Bench of the Tribunal itselfand the remaining 10% of the said demand may bedirected to be deposited within a period of one monthfrom today, since 20% of the total demand which was_required to be deposited within seven days of the orderpassed by the learned Tribunal on 22.03.2017 stands.deposited by the petitioner-company. 6. The said prayer of the learned Senior counselfor the petitioner-company is found to be in tune withthe suggestion of the Bench of Tribunal itself asindicated in paragraph-o of its order and even though,strictly speaking, this Court is not inclined to interferewith the aforesaid interlocutory interim order passed by Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 6/7 thelearnedTribunal,butin.thefactsandcircumstances of the case, the said submission of the.learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-company canbe accepted even at this stage, coupled with theaforesaid request made to the learned Tribunal to decidethe present appeal as well as the connected appealsexpeditiously. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed ofwith a slight notification of the direction given inparagraph-18 of the impugned order dated 22.03.2017.passed by the learned Tribunal that instead of 50% ofthe total tax demand, the petitioner-company maydeposit 30% of the said total tax demand disputedbefore the learned Tribunal and if the_ petitionercompany has already deposited 20% of the tax demandin view ot the atoresaid direction ot the learned|Tribunal, remaining 10% of the same also be depositedby the petitioner-company within the aforesaid period of Date of Order 17-07-2017 W.P.No.13601/2017 Google India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 7/7 one month as undertaken by the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner-company. No costs. Srl. od/-| JUDGE