2019 (7) TMI 133 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - condition to deposit 40% firstly - HELD THAT - The submissions made by the counsel are noted and prima facie this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner to furnish immovable property in compliance with the depositing 40% is untenable and therefore cannot be considered much less a direction could be issued to respondents to receive immovable property security towards compliance with 40% condition imposed in the conditional stay order. Objection that the 40% condition is also onerous is not fully correct. The appellate authority to the extent required, as it appears from Ext.P4 examined the case and exercised of the discretion. In normal circumstances this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 may not interdict the orders passed by exercising discretion and power of the authority, unless the admissible legal grounds are made out in this behalf. No special reason is assigned for 40% deposit and instead of 20% of demand which is a norm mostly looked at pending appeal. Though this Court shall not be understood as substituting its discretion for the power already exercised in the 1st respondent, to meet the ends of justice and in the circumstances of this case condition of 40% imposed by Ext.P4 is modified as 30%, first instalment payable on or before 15.07.2019 and 2nd instalment payable on or before 15.08.2019.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to stay order - Imposition of conditions - Compliance with deposit requirement - Modification of conditions

In this case, the petitioner challenged the stay order granted by the 1st respondent, which required a deposit of 40% of the demand in two equal instalments. The petitioner argued that this condition was arbitrary and illegal, proposing to provide immovable property security instead. The respondent, on the other hand, defended the stay order, stating that the 40% deposit condition was reasonable and that movable property security was not acceptable. The High Court noted the arguments and found that while it generally does not interfere with the discretion of authorities, in this case, the 40% deposit condition lacked a special reason. Therefore, the Court modified the condition to 30%, with the first instalment due by a specified date and the second instalment due a month later. The petitioner was allowed to enjoy the stay order subject to compliance, with a warning that default would lead to automatic vacation of the stay without court intervention. The Court emphasized that this modification was made to meet the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case.