1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1933 OF 2010 Symantee Software India Private Limited ..Petitioner. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Poras Kaka with Ms. Statira Rainani, Mr. Subhash Jadhav and Ms.Aastha Chandra i/b ALMT Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Respondents. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 10th March, 2010. P.C.: 1. The challenge in these proceedings is to a notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26th February, 2010 and to a further notice dated 3rd March, 2010. By the first of the two notices, the Petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.8.56 Crores towards the demand for Assessment Year 2006-07 within a period of thirty days of the service of the notice. By the subsequent notice this period has been curtailed to fifteen days. 2 2. At the hearing of the Petition, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated before the Court that an application for stay has been filed before the Assessing Officer on 9th March, 2010. Since an application for stay has been filed and the Petitioner is entitled to pursue its remedies against the original order of assessment as well, we do not consider it appropriate to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is particularly in view of the fact that at the hearing of the Petition, counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has stated before the Court that the notice dated 3rd March, 2010 by which the period for effecting payment of the demand was restricted to fifteen days is being withdrawn and shall not be enforced. The statement is accepted. In the circumstances, the only appropriate direction that can be issued in these proceedings is that the Assessing Officer shall pass orders on the application for stay filed on 9th March, 2010 after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee within a period of one week from today and that if an order adverse to the 3 assessee is passed, it shall not be enforced for a period of two weeks thereafter in order to enable the assessee to pursue its remedies in accordance with law. Since we have disposed of the Writ Petition without going into the merits of the case, in view of the fact that the assessee has filed an application for stay before the Assessing Officer and has a remedy of an appeal against the original order of assessment, we are not expressing any view on the merits of the contentions which were raised before the Court, which it is needless to observe would be open to the assessee to urge before the appropriate forum. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)