IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.766 OF 2008 WRIT PETITON NO.766 OF 2008 WRIT PETITON NO.766 OF 2008 Proctor & Gamble Home Products Ltd. ..Petitioners. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors...Respondents. Mr.S.E.Dastur, senior Advocate with Sanjiv M. Shah for petitioners. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Union of India. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned senior Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocate for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 27th March, 2008 whereby the Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Mumbai has directed the petitioners to pay Rs.3 crores by 28th March, 2008, against the demand for Rs.23,82,07,969/- raised for - = : 2 : = - A.Y.2004-05. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment order for 2004-05, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) by his order dated 21st February, 2007 had granted stay of recovery upto 31st December, 2007 without deposit whatsoever. However, on 5th December, 2007 the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Mumbai, totally disregarding the order dated 21/2/2007, directed the petitioners to pay 50% of the demand confirmed for A.Y. 2004-05. Mr.Dastur pointed out that the petitioners had made a representation on 11/12/2007 against the order dated 5/12/2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Mumbai. By the impugned order, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3 crores by 28/3/2008. As the amount of Rs.3 crores is not paid, it appears that on 29/03/2008 two bank accounts operated by the petitioners have been attached. 5. In the present case, admittedly total stay of recovery was granted upto 31/12/2007. Even before the said date, the petitioners were called upon to deposit 50% of the duty. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioners before C.I.T. (A) has been heard - = : 3 : = - substantially and that the petitioners have co-operated in the matter. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the stay was already operating since 21st February, 2007 and appeal is being heard, we are inclined to modify the order dated 27th March, 2008 and grant stay of recovery subject to petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.2 crores on or before 5th April, 2008 in the Government Treasury. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) shall dispose of the appeal against assessment order for AY 2004-05 as expeditiously as possible. 7. The respondents shall lift the attachment of the two Bank accounts of the petitioners one with City Bank and other with the Deutsche Bank forthwith. The petitioners undertake to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.2 crores in the government treasury positively on or before 5/4/2008. The undertaking is accepted. 8. It is made clear that if the aforesaid deposit is not made by 5th April, 2008, the accounts in the above mentioned banks shall stand attached immediately without further notice to this Court. 9. In the event the order is adverse to the - = : 4 : = - petitioners, the same shall not be operated for period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of the said order to the petitioners. 10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 11. Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)