1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Dated this 16th day of March 2020 Before HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No.145067/2020 (T-IT) Between M/s. VRL Logistics Ltd., RS No.351/1, VRL Complex, NH 4, Bengaluru Road, Varur, Hubballi-581207, Karnataka, Rep. By Its CMD Shri.Vijayashankeshwar Aged About: 70 Years. ...Petitioner (By Sri. H.R.Kambiyavar, Adv., for Sri. S Parthasarathi, Smt. Roopa S.Chinivar, Smt. Pratibha R., Smt. Patri Shashikala, Smt. Sowmya K., Advocates) And 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Navanagar, Hubballi-580025. Dharwad. 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Navangaar, Hubballi-580025, Dharwad. ...Respondents (By Sri. Y.V. Raviraj, Advocate For R1 & R2) 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari or direction in nature of writ of certiorari quashing order of first respondent bearing F.No.Stay Petition/Pr.CIT-HBL/2019-20 dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure-F); issue writ of certiorari or direction in nature of writ of certiorari quashing order of second respondent dated 24.2.2020 (Annexure-'G'), bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1025640933(1); issue writ of prohibition or direction in nature of writ of prohibition restraining first and second respondent not to recover demand over and above refund due to petitioner until disposal of appeal by Commissioner (A), Hubballi; and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in B Group, this day, Court made following: ORDER learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents are heard. 2. petitioner has challenged Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi second respondent s order dated 20th February 2020. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has rejected petitioner s application/petition for stay of 3 Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, without minimum deposit of 20% of demand as per such Assessment order. However, Principal Commissioner, while rejecting petitioner s application, has permitted petitioner to deposit minimum of 20% of demand in three installments. 3. learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to receive refunds for previous Assessment Years of 2015-16 and 2016-17, and if amount payable as such refund is adjusted towards minimum deposit of 20% of demand, not only minimum deposit would be made good but petitioner would also be entitled for refund of surplus. 4. learned counsel for respondents does not dispute factual assertion that petitioner would be entitled for refund for aforesaid two Assessment Years and that refund will have to be 4 adjusted towards minimum deposit of 20% of demand. learned counsel further submits authorities would accordingly make necessary adjustments and as such, challenge to Principal Commissioner s order dated 20.02.2020 and consequential demand as per Annexure-G is rendered infructuous. In light of foregoing it would suffice to take submissions of learned counsel for respondents on record and dispose of writ petition in terms thereof. writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Kms VRL Logistics Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Dharwad / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1), Dharwad