C. MURALEEDHARAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Ext.P10, a conditional stay order passed by the second respondent.

(2.) EXTS . P1 series are the assessment orders passed against the petitioner, against which, the petitioner filedExt.P2 series of appeals before the second respondent.Along with the appeals, the petitioner filed stay petitions evidenced by Ext. P3 series. Pursuant to the directions of this Court judgment in W.P.(c) No.20243 of 2012, a copy of which is Ext. P9,a stay petition was heard by the Appellate Authority and Ext. P10 order has been passed, granting stay on condition that the petitioner remits 50 percent of the demand. It is this order, which is under challenge.

(3.) HOWEVER , having regard to the nature of thecontentions raised and also the extend of the liability under the assessment orders, I am inclined to think that the condition requiring remittance of 50 percent of the demand is too onerous and needs to be modified. Therefore, Idirect that condition requiring remittance of 50 percent will stand modified and if the petitioner remits 30 percent of the amount due, in installments as specified in Ext.P10 order, there will be a stay of the recovery pursuant to Ext.P11 series of assessment orders and stay will continue till the appeals are heard. Writ petition is disposed of as above.