M/S.NEW STAR ELECTRONICS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the pending appeals within six months of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court made it clear that upon the petitioner paying Rs. 25,00,000/- within two months, recovery of the balance amounts confirmed by the assessment orders would be stayed until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passes orders on the appeals and communicates them to the petitioner. The Court took into account the pandemic situation and the petitioner's business lockdown. The specific amount to be paid (Rs. 25,00,000/-) was agreed upon by the petitioner.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. New Star Electronics, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (Assessing Authority) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner had appealed assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent). Pending these appeals, the petitioner sought a stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Authority directed payment of 20% of the disputed demand, which was later reduced to 15% by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner sought a complete stay of recovery proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition concerning the stay of demand pending appeal, particularly when the petitioner is willing to pay a substantial amount and the appeals are pending before the appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a complete stay of recovery proceedings pending the disposal of their appeals before the appellate authority. They were willing to pay Rs. 25,00,000/-. The petitioner also highlighted the impact of the pandemic lockdown on their business. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's position is not explicitly recorded in terms of specific arguments, but they were represented by their Standing Counsel, indicating their participation in opposing the petitioner's plea for a complete stay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. Against Ext.P1 series of assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 series of appeals before the 3rd respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had approached the Assessing Authority with petitions under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, which was disposed by the Assessing Authority by Ext.P4 series of orders, requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand pending disposal of the appeals. On an application preferred by the petitioner before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2nd respondent], Ext.P6 order was passed reducing the amount to 15% of the disputed demand. It is aggrieved by the said direction, and praying for a complete stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition and the appeals before the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had approached this Court through the present writ petition.
We have heard Sri. A. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel duly instructed by Sri.Navneeth N. Nath, the learned counsel for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, we find that the petitioner is ready to pay an WP(C).No. 9439 OF 2020 3 amount of Rs.25,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only] as against the demand in Ext.P6 order pending disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Authority. Taking note of the peculiar situation that existed during the pandemic period when the petitioner’s business has come under a lockdown, we deem it appropriate to dispose this writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent, before whom Ext.P2 series of appeals are pending, to consider and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that on the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within two months, there shall be a stay of recovery of balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment orders till such time as the 3rd respondent passes orders in the appeals and communicate those orders to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed as above.
(Sd/-)
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE (Sd/-) SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE prp/11/4/2020
WP(C).No. 9439 OF 2020 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 220(6)
- Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs ACIT, AllahabadITA 371/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2011-12
- Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
- Susi Charitable Trust, Khurda vs The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)…ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2026-27
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
