9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the demand only subject to a condition that 20% of the total demand has to be paid by the petitioner immediately. 2.In respect of the Assessment Year 2011-12, the second respondent/Assessing Authority passed an order of assessment dated 30.11.2017. The writ petitioner filed a stay petition before the Assessing Authority and requested to keep the outstanding demands of Assessment Year 2011-12 in abeyance till disposal of the appeal already filed before the first respondent/Appellate Authority. The second respondent by way of an order dated 07.02.2018, directed the petitioner to pay atleast 20% of the disputed demand failing which, it was informed, that the stay petition would be treated as deemed to have been rejected. Challenging the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unter affidavit. However, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the first respondent directed the petitioner to pay only 20% of the total demand, the said order need not be interfered with. 5.Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court and filed writ petition in W.P.No.3338 of 2018 as stated supra, wherein an order came to be passed on 04.04.2018, after hearing both sides. Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the said order read as follows: "10.Thus, in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on 27.06.2018, the order impugned in this writ petition, has not even referred to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, where a specific direction was issued to the first respondent to hear the stay petition on merits and take a decision in accordance with law, also by observing that the first respondent has to consider a prima facie case which the petitioner would place before him. On the other hand, he has simply disposed the stay petition without there being any discussion much less expressing a prima facie view as to why 20% of the total demand is directed to be paid by the petitioner, while granting stay for the balance demand. 8.Therefore, it is apparent that the first respondent, apart from not following t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
