Court modifies installment terms, extends payment schedule, stresses timely payments, disposes stay petitions.

The court upheld the deposit condition of 20% and installment directions in Ext.P5 as reasonable but extended the installments from four to six to accommodate the petitioner's hardship. The modified order emphasized timely payment to maintain the stay granted and set a completion date for the installments, ultimately disposing of the stay petitions for the relevant assessment years.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to deposit condition of 20% and installment directions in Ext.P5

In this case, the petitioner challenged Ext.P5, which directed the deposit of 20% of the total demand for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 in four equal monthly installments. The petitioner argued that the 20% benchmark deposit was unwarranted as they had already deposited a substantial amount. The respondent contended that Ext.P5 reflected a discretionary decision to grant stay of the assessment order, considering all relevant circumstances and hardships. The court, after perusing Ext.P5, found the condition imposed to be reasonable and not arbitrary. However, in light of the hardship presented by the petitioner, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and extended the installments from four to six, allowing the petitioner to pay the 20% demand in six equal monthly installments. The modified order emphasized the importance of timely payment to avoid revocation of the stay granted and allowed for completion of installments by a specified date. The court disposed of the stay petitions for the relevant assessment years accordingly.

This judgment involved a challenge to the deposit condition of 20% and installment directions in Ext.P5. The petitioner argued against the necessity of the 20% deposit, citing a substantial amount already deposited. The respondent defended Ext.P5 as a discretionary decision considering relevant circumstances and hardships. The court, upon review, found the condition imposed in Ext.P5 to be reasonable. However, acknowledging the hardship presented, the court extended the installments from four to six, allowing the petitioner to pay the 20% demand in six equal monthly installments. The modified order emphasized the importance of timely payment to avoid revocation of the stay granted and specified a completion date for the installments. The court disposed of the stay petitions for the relevant assessment years accordingly.

---