M/S J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner Of Income

WP-20210-2016 (M/S J.P. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME) 16-12-2016 Shri A.K. Shrivastava with Shri Abhishek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents, on advance notice. Challenging the order dated 7.11.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur rejecting certain prayer made by the petitioner and directing them to deposit the tax due in installments of Rs.1 Crore per month for the assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, this writ petition have been filed. Challenging the order in the matter of disallowing certain benefits for the assessment years in question it is seen that appeals are pending before the competent tribunal and as action was being initiated for recovery of the tax, a writ petition was filed. The petition was disposed of on 20.9.2016 and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was directed to decide the representation. As the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has rejected the prayer for grant of certain benefit of stay and adjustment in pursuance to an order passed by this Court on 20.9.2016 in Writ Petition filed by the petitioner by the impugned order Annexure P-12 dated 7.11.2016, this writ petition has been filed. In the impugned order dated 7.11.2016 various reasons have been given by the learned Commissioner in para 5, therefore, indicating as to why the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has considered the representation of the petitioner and has taken a decision after considering various aspects of the matter, including criteria laid down for granting stay under the circular of the department dated 29.02.2016 and decision in this regard taken by the Commissioner, as detailed in para 5 of the Annexure P-12 dated 7.11.2016 cannot be termed as perverse, arbitrary or illegal, warranting interference into the matter by this Court. Merely because certain appeals filed by the revenue is pending before this Court challenging benefit granted in previous years we see no reason for interference into the matter. However, after concluding the submissions, an alternate submission was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to say that, in case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit to petitioner, atleast installment of Rs.1 crore per month be reduced to Rs.50 lacs per month, considering the financial hardship of the petitioner. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere into the matter on merits, however, we direct the Commissioner, Income Tax Jabalpur to give facility of installment to the petitioner @ Rs.50 lacs per month and to that effect condition No.8 of para 5 of the order dated 7.11.2016 be modified and now the installment and the period for payment be fixed by reducing it from Rs.1 crore per month to Rs.50 lacs per month. With the aforesaid the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI) JUDGE ss