TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Writ of Mandamus: Court Orders Specific Payments with Limited Stay</h1> <h3>George Maijo Industries Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 2 (3), Chennai</h3> George Maijo Industries Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 2 (3), Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Writ of mandamus sought to lift bank account attachments by respondent.2. Assessment orders passed against petitioner for various years.3. Appeals filed by petitioner before different authorities.4. Bank accounts of petitioner attached, affecting business activities.5. Petitioner's plea for stay application rejected by ITAT.6. No stay petitions filed for certain assessment years.7. Petitioner's willingness to make payment for demands.8. Respondent's argument against lifting bank account attachments.9. Court's consideration of submissions and materials presented.10. Disposition of the writ petition with specific orders.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to lift bank account attachments made by the respondent based on notices dated 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022.2. Assessment orders were passed against the petitioner for different assessment years, with appeals filed before the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT, pending for certain years.3. Bank accounts of the petitioner were attached, leading to severe disruptions in business operations.4. The petitioner's stay application for the demand of Assessment Year 2012-13 was rejected by the ITAT, while no such application was filed for other assessment years.5. The petitioner expressed readiness to make partial payments towards the demands to seek relief from the attachment of bank accounts.6. The respondent argued that without substantial payments, lifting the bank account attachments cannot be considered.7. The court noted the submissions from both parties and examined the presented materials.8. Considering the circumstances, the court ordered the petitioner to make specific payments for different assessment years within a designated period.9. The court granted a stay for a limited time for the petitioner to approach relevant authorities for further relief.10. Non-compliance with the court's orders would result in automatic vacation of the stay, allowing the Revenue to proceed with further actions.This detailed analysis outlines the issues raised, arguments presented, and the court's decision in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court.
TaxTMI 