IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 04.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.Nos.2784 to 2787 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 1 of 2011 M/s.Rattha Holding Co. (P) Ltd., A Private Limited Company Incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, represented by its Direcor Mr.Harinder Singh No.37, T.T.K.Road, Chennai-600 018 .. Petitioner in WP.No.2784/2011 Harbinder Singh .. Petitioner in WP.No.2785/2011 Harinder Singh .. Petitioner in WP.No.2786/2011 Gurbinder Singh .. Petitioner in WP.No.2787/2011 Versus 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V (3), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-V) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 .. Respondents in all the above WPs Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in in Order C.No.Scrutiny/ Com.Cir.V(3)/2010-11 relating to the application made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the petitioner for stay of demand under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 and quash the order dated 27.01.2011 rejecting the stay petition and direct the first respondent to grant stay of demand relating to the assessment orders for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, 2005-2006 to 2008-09, 2005-06 to 2008-09, and 2005-06 to 2008 -09 respectively pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Krishnamurthy, (in all WPs) Senior Advocate for Mr.R.Sivaraman. For Respondents : Mr.Narayanasamy (in all WPs) Standing counsel for Respondents. COMMON ORDER The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that all the relevant issues had not been considered as per the circulars issued by the respondents and by taking into consideration the decisions of the various Courts of law , while disposing of the petitions filed by the petitioners, for stay of the collection of the disputed tax. In the impugned order, the main reason stated for the rejection of the stay petitions is as follows: "In view of the above position you have no valid ground to claim stay of demand till the disposal of appeal as it can be seen that there are very little chances of success in appeal." As such, it is clear that the second respondent had travelled beyond the scope of the stay petitions while disposing of the same. 2. Even though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the petitioners may be directed to deposit a part of the tax liability assessed against them, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as it is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, they are set aside. It is also found to be appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose the appeals pending on his file, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall co-operate fully, in the disposal of the appeals. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners, in respect of tax amounts to be collected from them, based on the impugned demands. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kal To 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V (3), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-V) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 + 4 CC to M/s R.Sivaraman, Advocate SR.No.8704 + 1 Cc to M/s J.Narayanaswamy Advocate SR.No.9351 KSK(CO) VC(4.3.2011) W.P.Nos.2784 to 2787 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/