Court modifies Tribunal's order on tax deposit, reduces to 30% from 50%, stresses quick resolution.

The Court modified the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's interlocutory stay order, allowing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the tax demand instead of the initially required 50%. The Tribunal's direction for payment was adjusted with the petitioner's agreement, emphasizing the need for expedited resolution of pending appeals. The Court refrained from delving into the case's merits, urging the Tribunal to promptly decide the appeals within six months. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with the modified deposit terms in place.

---

---

Issues:
Interlocutory stay order requiring deposit of 50% of tax demand - Petitioner's challenge - Tribunal's direction - Petitioner's willingness to deposit 30% - Tribunal's expeditious decision required.

Analysis:
The petitioner, M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., challenged an interlocutory stay order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Bengaluru, for the Assessment year 2012-13. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the tax demand, with 20% to be paid within seven days and the balance in six equal installments. The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Percy Pardiwala, objected to this and referred to the Tribunal's suggestion of paying 30% instead, which was not accepted. The Tribunal justified its decision based on considerations like prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.

The petitioner sought to argue the case's merits, but the Court declined, noting the pending appeals before the Tribunal for final hearing. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to expedite the pending appeals, refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The petitioner agreed to deposit 30% of the tax demand as suggested by the Tribunal, with the remaining 10% to be paid within a month. The Court, while not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order, accepted the petitioner's submission in light of the circumstances and urged the Tribunal to decide the appeals promptly, preferably within six months.

Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a modification to the Tribunal's direction, allowing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed tax demand instead of 50%, with the remaining 10% to be paid within a month as agreed by the petitioner's Senior Counsel. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---