Wp(Md)/10376/2022 Of Kalpana Balasubramanian v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.05.2022CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICER.VIJAYAKUMARW.P.(MD)No.10376 of 2022 andWMP(MD).No. 7385 of 2022 Kalpana Balasubramanian .. Petitioner Vs.. 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Income Tax Staff Quarters Complex, Kulamangalam Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai-625002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Income Tax Officer, Madurai, No.2, V P Rathinaswamy Nadar Road, C R Building, Bibikulam, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Commissioner fo Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New No.46, Old No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. .. Respondents PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords in DIN and Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043004975(1),dated 11.05.2022 on the file of the first respondent relating to theA.Y.2014-15, quash the same and direct the first respondent to grantstay of collectin of outstanding tax demand pending disposal of theappeal before the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.J.HariharanFor Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ORDER The present writ Petition has been filed challenging theorder, dated 11.05.2022 passed by the first respondent herein,rejecting the application for stay filed by the writ petitioner on26.04.2022.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. According to the writ petitioner, the first respondenthas passed the impugned order fixing 20% of the amount to be paid,even for considering the stay application, which is not a statutorymandate. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondentsstrongly objected the prayer in the writ petition and pointed outsection 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, wherein, it is the discretionof the authority to impose any condition for granting an order ofinterim stay. 4. Any how, the main grievance of the writ petitioner isthat she was not heard before passing the said impugned order.Directing the writ petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount ascondition precedent will have civil consequences. Unless thepetitioner is heard, such an order could not have been passed.Since the order is in violation of principles of natural justice,the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back tothe file of the first respondent and to pass fresh orders on meritsand in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of beingheard. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 15days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Vacation Officer/Assistant Registrar // True Copy // vsg/trp / /2022Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Income Tax Staff Quarters Complex, Kulamangalam Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai-625002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Income Tax Officer, Madurai, No.2, V P Rathinaswamy Nadar Road, C R Building, Bibikulam,https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai-625 002. 3.The Commissioner fo Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New No.46, Old No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034.