2010 (10) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Application for stay - Demand notice - Assessment order - no prayer for interim relief against the assessed amount of tax was made before the appellate authority - Held that - petitioner has filed the appeal full liberty to file application for interim relief before the appellate authority - writ petition dismissed after granting a relief of two months.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of writ petition for quashing demand notice under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Availability of alternative remedies before appellate authority.
3. Timely decision on pending appeal by appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The High Court examined the jurisdiction of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a demand notice after an assessment order had been passed. The petitioner had filed an appeal without seeking interim relief against the assessed tax amount. The court held that since the petitioner had the opportunity to request interim relief before the appellate authority, the writ petition for quashing the demand notice was not maintainable. The court emphasized that the petitioner could have availed remedies during the appeal process and dismissed the writ petition on this ground.

2. The court noted that the petitioner had previously moved an application for stay before the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, which was rejected. Despite the rejection, the petitioner did not seek interim relief before the appellate authority during the appeal process. The court highlighted that the petitioner had the option to request such relief at the appellate stage. The absence of such a request led to the dismissal of the writ petition, as the petitioner had not exhausted all available remedies before approaching the court.

3. Regarding the pending appeal, the court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within a maximum period of two months from the date of the court order. During this period, no recovery was to be made from the petitioner if it had not already been initiated. The court emphasized the importance of timely resolution of pending appeals to ensure that the parties involved receive a swift decision on their legal matters. This directive aimed to expedite the resolution of the petitioner's appeal and prevent prolonged delays in the adjudication process.