Wp v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TENPRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5647 of 2010 Between: M/s. Gujarat Andhra Road Carriers, Nizamabad, rep., by its partnerJasmer Singh Dhillon. ..... PETITIONER AND 1The income Tax Officer, Nizamabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI& THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5647 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of therespondents in issuing the notice dated 1.3.2010 in Form No.ITCP-25under Rule 73 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 asillegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct them not to take anycoercive steps for recovery of the arrears pending disposal of theappeal before the 4[th] respondent. The case of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessmentorder dated 31.12.2008, it had preferred an appeal before the 4[th]respondent and the same is pending adjudication and it had also filedan application before the 3[rd] respondent seeking stay of collection ofthe tax pending disposal of the appeal, but the 3[rd] respondent grantedstay subject to payment of 50% of the demand in installments at therate of Rs.2,00,000/- p.m. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that itcould pay only Rs.1,00,000/- p.m., and in this connection they made arepresentation to the 3[rd] respondent and the 3[rd] respondent asked thepetitioner to approach the 1[st] respondent. While so, the impugnednotice was issued. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material availableon record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner thatthe appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the 4[th]respondent and that the petitioner could pay Rs.1,00,000/- per monthand therefore, on such condition, stay of further proceedings may begranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the factthat the appeal is pending before the 4[th] respondent, withoutexpressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it a fit casewherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of all further proceedings,pending disposal of the appeal before the 4[th] respondent subject to thecondition of the petitioner depositing Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees TenLakhs only) on or before 31[st] March, 2010. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana RaoDate: 11[th] March, 2010Note:Operative portion by wireat party’s costs (BO) nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI& THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5647 of 2010(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 03/03/2010