Court denies application to vacate stay on assessment order, stresses adherence to procedures, discourages writ petition misuse.

The court dismissed the petitioner's application to vacate the stay granted on the assessment order for the year 2011-2012. The court emphasized the need to adhere to statutory procedures and discouraged the misuse of writ petitions for interim relief. It highlighted the importance of caution in granting far-reaching interim orders and found no grounds to maintain the stay, ultimately allowing the application to vacate the stay.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge regarding transfer of case to ACIT, Panvel Circle, Maharashtra.
2. Assessment order for the year 2011-2012 challenged before the Appellate Authority.
3. Writ petition filed for quashing the order of assessment and transfer of case.
4. Application for vacating the stay granted on 5.5.2014.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, challenged the rejection of the transfer request to ACIT, Panvel Circle, Maharashtra, citing jurisdictional issues. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the transfer request, leading to the assessment order for the year 2011-2012 by the Assessing Authority in Indore. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the assessment order and transfer the case, which was disposed of with a stay on assessment proceedings pending jurisdictional determination.

2. Subsequently, the Chief Commissioner decided on jurisdiction, and the assessment order was passed by the respondent. The petitioner appealed this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the demand raised. The petitioner filed another writ petition seeking relief through certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and other appropriate writs. The court granted interim relief staying coercive action on the assessment order.

3. A subsequent application was filed to vacate the stay, arguing that the writ petition was admitted for final hearing and a blanket stay order was in place. The respondents contended that the petitioner's jurisdiction lay with the Income Tax Officer in Indore, supported by past acknowledgments and lack of cooperation from the assessee. The petitioner's counsel argued against vacating the stay, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction of the authority in Indore.

4. The court emphasized that Article 226 should not bypass statutory procedures unless in exceptional circumstances. It discouraged using writ petitions solely for interim relief purposes to delay proceedings. While acknowledging the court's duty to intervene in cases of gross violations or public mischief, it highlighted the need for caution in granting far-reaching interim orders. Considering the pending appeal and past assessments in Indore, the court found no grounds to maintain the stay, vacating it and allowing the application to vacate the stay.

This detailed analysis covers the jurisdictional challenges, assessment order disputes, writ petition proceedings, and the subsequent application for vacating the stay, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.

---