(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2810 OF 2009 Skoda Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.A. Dada with Mr. Jitendra Jain and Mr. P.D. Shah i/b. PDS Legal for the petitioners. Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED: 20th April, 2009 DATED: 20th April, 2009 DATED: 20th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. Though challenges are made to various orders, at the hearing petitioners confined themselves to challenge the order dated 10th February, 2009 based on which a demand was made by an order dated 3rd March, 2009. 3. By the order dated 10th February, 2009 the Commissioner of Income Tax was pleased to grant stay and was pleased to keep in abeyance till 9th March, 2009 the demand made for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 subject to the condition that 30% of the current demand for the year 2005-06 is paid within 15 days from the receipt of the letter including adjustment on Rs.1,29,37,500/. Though reference has been made to the assessment year (-2-) 2004-05 factually speaking the stay was granted on 9th March, 2008 in terms set out therein. . The issue, therefore, in this petition is confined to the assessment year 2005-06. By the same order in para.2 the Commissioner observed that the demand for assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 is kept in abeyance till 9th March, 2009 or the decision in a similar Appeal for assessment year 2003-04 whichever is earlier. 4. The petitioners have filed an affidavit of Sanjay Mundade, General Manage, Accounts and Treasury. They have worked out the demand as payable for the assessment year 2005-06 based on the orders pased by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2003-04. According to the petitioners against the demand of Rs.1,36,85,024/- they are entitled to adjust Rs.1,29,37,500/-. Apart from that for the earlier assessment year they are entitled to refunds. Under thee circumstances it is submitted that they should not be called upon to make any further deposit in so far as the interim stay is concerned pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. 5. On behalf of the respondents learned Counsel submits that though ITAT has passed the order yet (-3-) the concerned authority has not passed the order in terms of the order of the Tribunal and consequently it is not possible to ascertain as of today the actual demand on the petitioners. 6. Having heard the Counsel, in our opinion and as Revenue is fully protected considering the order of the ITAT, the communication of 10th February, 2009 directing 30% for assessment year 2005-06 to be deposited is set aside. The Appeal is to be heard and disposed of on merits without any deposit. 7. Liberty to the respondents in the event the authorities subsequent to the order of the Tribunal have worked out the figures and those result in the petitioners paying any additional tax dues to move this Court for appropriate orders. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) J.)