Kanya Maha Vidyalaya v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.1.2013CWP No. 351 of 2013 Kanya Maha Vidyalaya ...... Petitioner vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others.....Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: -Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. ........... Challenge in the present writ petition is to thecommunication dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure P-9), whereby thepetitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- by 10.1.2013whereas the remaining demand was stayed up to 31.1.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehementlyargued that earlier the entire demand was stayed vide thecommunication dated 8.11.2012 up to 31.12.2012 but without anychange of circumstance, the conditional order has been passed thattoo without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the petitioner was found liable to pay tax of Rs. 56,46,225/- andthe equivalent amount as penalty for the assessment year 2009-2010vide the order of assessment dated 3.8.2011. The appellant is inappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Since, there is a huge demand against the petitioner, acommunication directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- by 10.1.2013 isfair and reasonable so as to secure the interest of the revenue and alsogranting relief to the petitioner before the Appeal is heard on merits inaccordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a DivisionBench judgment of this Court reported as (1998) 233 ITR 27 (P&H), PawanKumar vs. Income Tax Officer,wherein, this Court has observed that theorder of declining stay without granting opportunity of hearing violates theprinciple of natural justice. Petitioner is duty bound to pay the duty amount of tax and thepenalty as assessed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was grantedindulgence at one stage by deferring the payment of tax and penalty butsubsequently, on a request made by the petitioner, a conditional order hasbeen passed as mentioned above. Since, the payment of tax and penalty is astatutory duty, we do not find that any case is made out for interference inthe writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA)JUDGE 10.1.2013preeti (RITU BAHRI)JUDGE