What did the High Court hold?

The Court directed the petitioner to pursue their stay application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority was asked to consider the application expeditiously, and no precipitative action was to be taken during its pendency.

The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their application for stay of demand and directing payment of 50% of the demand for AY 2015-16. The petitioner also challenged subsequent orders from the respondents.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal is available and pending before the appellate authority. The issue of stay of demand pending appeal.

Fincare Business Services Ltd vs ITO | Karnataka High Court 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.13144/2018 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

FINCARE BUSINESS SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY FINCARE BUSINESS SERVICES PVT.LTD.) NO.835, 5TH FLOOR, SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, "BREN MERCURY", BANGALORE-561103. REP. HEREIN BY TS DIRECTOR, Mr. KEYUR GOPALBHAI DOSHI.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.P.KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W Ms. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI V.VINAY GIRI, ADV.)

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 3(1)(1) II FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BMTC COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2018 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION

- 2 - FOR STAY OF THE DEMAND PURSUANT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF 50% OF THE DEMAND;

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2018 (Annexure-F) to the writ petition passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay of the demand pursuant to the assessment order passed for the assessment year 2015-16 and directing payment of 50% of the demand inter alia challenging the orders at Annexures-L and Q passed by the office of the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent, dated 14.2.2018 and 20.3.2018, respectively.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that admittedly stay application is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-First Appellate Authority and as such, the assessee/ petitioner can pursue his remedy before the

- 3 - First Appellate Authority instead of rushing to this Court invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the pendency of stay application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appellate Authority).

If that being the position, interest of justice would be met in directing the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appellate Authority) in the pending proceedings. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appellate Authority) shall consider the application of stay filed by the petitioner in an expedite manner and shall take a decision in accordance with law. However, the Authorities shall not initiate any precipitative action during the pendency of the stay application. In the event a decision is taken against the petitioner, the Authorities shall not

- 4 - precipitate the matter for a period of one week from the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Authority. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

ln.

FINCARE BUSINESS SERVICES LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 3(1)(1)

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments