Allowing the petition , considering the peculiar facts of the case It is beyond dispute that if the petitioner does not remit the 15% of the amount directed to be paid, the benefit of the interim order will not be available to him. At the same time, if he is compelled to pay such a huge amount, there is force in the contention that the same will have an adverse impact on his business. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to modify Ext.P7 order granting stay for 95% of the demand covered by Ext.P1 order, on condition that he shall pay the remaining 5% in two instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 01/02/2018 and the second instalment before, 01/03/2018. ( AY. 2014-15)
Antony Sunny v. JCIT (2018) 164 DTR 290 (Ker) (HC)
S.226: Recovery – Stay was granted by directing to pay 5% of demand in dispute in two instalments as against 15% was directed to be paid earlier order