High Court upholds Commissioner's order on tax demand stay, modifies payment terms

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the interim order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for stay of recovery of a demand amount. The appellant's request for modification was partially granted by a Single Judge, reducing the payment condition. The Court found no errors in the impugned judgment and allowed an extension for payment, specifying deadlines for installment payments. The appellant was directed to comply with the payment conditions to avoid further consequences.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to judgment dismissing writ petition regarding interim order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for stay of recovery of demand pending disposal of appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an interim order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking a stay of recovery of a demand amounting to Rs. 44,82,72,598 pending the disposal of the appeal related to the assessment for the year 2016-2017. The CIT (Appeals) had granted an interim stay subject to conditions that the appellant pay 20% of the demand by a specified date. The appellant sought modification of the order, which was partially granted by a learned Single Judge, reducing the payment condition to 50% of the amount in two installments. The CIT (Appeals) was directed to dispose of the appeal promptly.

The High Court, after considering the arguments, found no errors or improprieties in the impugned judgment that warranted interference. The appellant's request to extend the payment period was considered, with the appellant already having remitted a partial sum. The Standing Counsel for the Government of India pointed out the appellant's failure to comply with the original judgment's direction.

The Court decided to dismiss the writ appeal but allowed an extension for payment. The appellant was given until a specified date to deposit the balance of the first installment mentioned in the original judgment. If this condition was met, the appellant would be permitted to remit the second installment within one month thereafter.

In conclusion, the writ appeal was disposed of with the extension granted for the payment of the demanded amount, subject to the conditions specified by the Court.

---