2017 (7) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....therwise the impugned stay order F.No.stay of demand/Pr.CIT/KLB/2016-17 dated 31.03.2017 issued by the learned first respondent for the AY 2012-13 enclosed in Annexure A; (B) Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugned letter No.Recovery/SLJ/ACIT/C-1/BLY/2016-17 dated 10.02.2017 issued by the learned second respondent to the Director of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru for the AY 2012-13 enclosed in Annexure B1; (C) Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugned notices No.SLJ/226(3)/ACIT/BLY/2016-17 dated 10.12.2017 issued by the learned second respondent to the Branch Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... As there is no provision in law for the petitioner to seek stay of the operation and execution of the Assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal, petitioner has approached the 1st respondent requesting to grant stay and the 1st respondent has granted stay for the operation and execution of the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-D subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the demanded tax of Rs. 10,18,78,983/- in installments at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per month. As petitioner has difficulty to comply with the conditions imposed by the first respondent while granting stay, has preferred this writ petition seeking reliefs stated supra. This Court granted stay of the operation and execution of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-D challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 27.04.2016. As there is no provision in law for the petitioner to seek stay of the operation and execution of the Assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal, petitioner has approached the 1st respondent requesting to grant stay and the 1st respondent has granted stay for the operation and execution of the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-D subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the demanded tax of Rs. 10,18,78,983/- in installments at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per month. This Court wh....