Court orders prompt review of applications, refrains from assessing merits.

The court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the 2nd respondent to review the applications promptly and make decisions based on merit and legal provisions within two weeks. The court refrained from assessing the merits of the petitioners' claims, emphasizing the appellate authority's jurisdiction over such matters. The judgment ordered the closure of the writ petitions without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging proceedings of the first respondent calling for payment, interim stay of demand pending appeal, validity of order demanding 20% payment, jurisdiction of appellate authority, application before 2nd respondent for questioning order, disposal of writ petitions.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenge the first respondent's communication demanding payment within three days to stay recovery of the balance demand. The impugned order pertains to assessment years 2010-2011 to 2016-2017. The petitioners sought interim stay of demand pending appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Assessing Authority required payment of 20% of disputed demand for stay, prompting the challenge in court.

The court noted that assessment orders were under appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioners' contention on the demand's merits was not entertained as it falls under the appellate authority's purview. The petitioners also filed applications before the 2nd respondent questioning the Assessing Officer's order, as per a Circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents assured that the applications before the 2nd respondent would be considered promptly. The court decided that the 2nd respondent should review the applications and pass orders on merit and in accordance with the law within two weeks. The court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioners, emphasizing that it had not delved into the contentions raised in the writ petitions. The judgment directed the closure of the writ petitions without costs.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions with a directive for the 2nd respondent to review the applications filed by the petitioners promptly and make decisions based on merit and legal provisions. The judgment refrained from assessing the merits of the petitioners' claims, emphasizing the appellate authority's jurisdiction over such matters.

---