High Court quashes tax order, grants stay, and allows fund repatriation.

The High Court held that the third respondent's review of the tax payment order for the assessment year 2015-16 was without jurisdiction. Considering the petitioner's successful track record in previous assessments and pending appeals, the balance of convenience favored the petitioner. The impugned order demanding payment of 20% disputed tax was set aside, and a stay on tax collection was granted until the appeal's disposal. The petitioner was given liberty to request repatriation of the demanded amount to their bank account, with respondents directed to consider the representation promptly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disputed tax payment order for the assessment year 2015-16
2. Jurisdiction of the third respondent to review earlier order
3. Balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner
4. Stay of tax collection

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order directing payment of 20% disputed tax for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner had succeeded in previous assessments for 2010-11 and 2012-13, with pending appeals by the Department. The Assessing Officer acknowledged the eligibility of the petitioner for exemption under Section 10 (23) (iv) based on ITAT's decision. Despite the petitioner's appeal and stay granted by the second respondent, the third respondent reviewed the order, raising concerns over their jurisdiction. The High Court found the third respondent's review without jurisdiction, as the statute did not empower such revision.

2. The petitioner's success in previous assessments and pending appeals indicated the balance of convenience favored the petitioner, a Government of India undertaking. The impugned order demanding payment of 20% disputed tax was deemed unsustainable in law due to the petitioner's favorable track record before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and granted a stay on tax collection for the assessment year 2015-16 until the appeal's disposal.

3. The petitioner was granted liberty to request repatriation of the demanded amount to their bank account. The High Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation within two weeks, considering previous observations related to granting stay on the entire demand. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

---