9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-2019 - MR S. V. BHATTI, J. For The PETITIONER : ADVS. SRI. P. B. SAHASRANAMAN AND SRI. T. S. HARIKUMAR For The RESPONDENT : ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P. B. Sahasranaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and granted stay pending appeal. The condition to deposit 40% firstly is not on the higher side and secondly instalments are also granted. According to him, the department doest not accept movable property security in lieu of depositing 40% imposed through Ext.P4 order. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. 4. The submissions made by the counsel are noted and prima facie t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case on hand, 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
