Petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking court intervention in tax dispute

The High Court rejected the petitioner's direct approach without availing alternative remedies for the Income Tax Officer's rejection of stay of demands for multiple financial years. The court emphasized exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention and directed the petitioner to first file a revision/review petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's offer to deposit a specified amount to release the attached cash credit account, pending the outcome of the revision/review application. The court's directives included specific instructions based on the Commissioner's final decision on the application, ultimately disposing of the writ petitions and related applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of stay of demands by Income Tax Officer for multiple financial years.
2. Direct approach to the High Court without availing alternative remedy.
3. Attachment of cash credit account by Income Tax Department.
4. Offer made by petitioner's counsel for deposit to release attachment.

Issue 1: The petitioner was aggrieved by the Income Tax Officer's rejection of stay of demands for financial years 2012-2013 to 2017-2018 due to non-fulfillment of the condition of paying 20% of the gross demand before filing the stay application. The petitioner had the option to seek revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, but chose to directly approach the High Court without availing this alternative remedy.

Issue 2: The petitioner moved directly to the High Court due to the imminent attachment of their cash credit account by the Income Tax Department, as confirmed by a letter from the petitioner's banker. Despite the pending challenges to demand notices before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner bypassed the statutory remedy. The High Court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

Issue 3: The petitioner's counsel offered to deposit 20% of the gross demand to release the attached cash credit account, citing provisions in circulars issued by the CBDT allowing for a reduction in the required deposit percentage for staying demand notices. The High Court found the offer genuine, considering the hindrance caused to the petitioner's business by the attachment. The court directed the petitioner to make a deposit of a specified amount, with the attachment remaining in abeyance pending the outcome of a revision/review application before the Commissioner of Income Tax.

Issue 4: The High Court disposed of the writ petitions, instructing the petitioner to first avail the alternative remedy of filing a revision/review petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court's directions included making a deposit to release the attachment of the cash credit account and specified the process to be followed based on the Commissioner's final decision on the revision/review application. The pending Interlocutory Applications were also disposed of in light of the court's directives.

---