Court grants relief: petitioner can pay disputed demand in installments, recovery stayed. Order challenge allowed.

The court granted relief to the petitioner, allowing payment of the disputed demand in installments and staying recovery of the remaining amount until January 2014. The petitioner was permitted to challenge the order or seek an extension of stay if necessary, emphasizing that future proceedings would be determined on their own merits and in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Petition to quash notice issued by Commissioner of Income Tax under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief to quash a notice dated 19/08/2013 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Deputy Commissioner had earlier passed an order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, staying 50% of the demand until the decision of the First Appeal or January 2014, and allowing payment of the remaining 50% in six equal instalments starting from August 2013.

2. Despite the stay granted by the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner to immediately pay 50% of the disputed demand to avoid coercive measures. The court noted that both parties must abide by the order passed under Section 220(6) but allowed the petitioner to challenge the conditions of the order or seek an extension of stay if the appeal is not heard.

3. The petitioner's counsel agreed to pay 50% of the disputed demand by a specified date and reserved the right to approach the appropriate authority for an extension of stay for the remaining amount if the appeal was not heard by January 2014. The court directed the petitioner to pay the agreed amount by the specified date and stayed the recovery of the remaining amount until January 2014, with the liberty for the petitioner to seek an extension of stay or challenge the order as necessary.

4. The court disposed of the Special Civil Application by ordering the petitioner to make the payment as agreed, staying the recovery of the remaining amount until January 2014, and granting the petitioner the liberty to seek an extension of stay or challenge the order if needed. The judgment emphasized that any future proceedings would be considered in accordance with the law and on their own merits.

5. In conclusion, the court granted the relief sought by the petitioner, allowing for the payment of the disputed demand in installments and staying the recovery of the remaining amount until a specified date. The judgment ensured that the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the order or seek an extension of stay if required.

---