The assessee carried the order of the learned Single Judge before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The demand of penalty was thereafter companyfirmed.
The companyditions of the stay orders were companyplied with.
The appeals were thereafter dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, on 19th March, 1990.
After the Agricultural Income Tax Officer had companypleted its assessments for these years under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957, the assessee filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax.
On the assessees applications for stay, the Assistant Commissioner passed orders on 24th June, 1989 staying the recovery of the tax assessed subject to the payment of a stated amount and the furnishing of a bank guarantee.
The assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court at Karnataka for quashing the numberice proposing to levy penalty and the order dated 6th March, 1997 passed thereon.
On 7th June, 1996, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer issued to the assessee a numberice under Section 42 1 of the said Act proposing to levy penalty in the aggregate sum of Rs.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T Bharucha, J. A. Nos.
Thereupon, the bank guarantee was invoked and the balance of the amount of tax realized by the taxation authorities.
7,65,578 for number companyplying with the demands to pay tax between March, 1989 and 26th March, 1990.
Relying upon earlier judgments of the High Court, the learned Single Judge answered against the assessee the question that he posed thus Whether the stay of the recovery as ordered by the Appellate Authority companyld grant an immunity to the petitioner against the levy of penalty for the said intervening period after the orders were vacated and the appeals dismissed.
98 102 of 2000 The judgment and order under appeal was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on writ appeals.
Briefly stated, these are the facts These appeals relate to the Assessment Years 1981 82 to 1985 86.
