Harsha Devani, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present petition which lies in a very narrow compass, the matter was taken up for final hearing.

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following substantive reliefs:-

"7. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner prays that:-

[A] this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for and look into the records of the proceedings taken by the Tax Recovery Officer as also the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the proceedings taken by them, as also the notices of Tax Recovery Officer at Annexures-G, I and J and the other of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, at Annexure-L.

[B] this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the stay of demand of Rs. 22,94,74,880/- till the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

[C] this Hon'ble Court be pleased to ask the Tax Recovery officer to lift all attachments done on (i) all properties belonging to the petitioner, particularly on 114 flats and the land belonging to the petitioner and (ii) Bank Account No. 05332560003644 of the petitioner with HDFC Bank Ltd. Varachha, Surat."

4. The petitioner, a partnership firm, started construction of Om Township Project in the assessment year 2011-12. It is the case of the petitioner that no sales were effected in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, and sales of Rs. 30,97,77,000/- were made in assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner came to be searched under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on 17.07.2012. By order dated 31.03.2015 passed under section 153A of the Act, the petitioner came to be assessed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14. Against the assessment orders, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Surat. It is the case of the petitioner that high-pitched assessments have been made on the petitioner which are highly contentious and hence, the petitioner has a good case to succeed in all the appeals. As a result of the above assessments, the Assessing Officer raised total demand of Rs. 22,94,74,880/-. The notices of demand under section 156 of the Act came to be issued and served upon the petitioner. The petitioner, through its Chartered Accountants, made three stay applications dated 04.05.2015 (one for each assessment year) to the first respondent Assessing Officer stating, inter alia, that it hopes to succeed fully; that the financial position of the petitioner is too poor to meet such huge demand even in part and that the petitioner expects the Assessing Officer to follow the CBDT Circular No. 530 dated 06.03.1989, Circular No. 589 dated 16.01.1991, Instruction No. 1914/2004 dated 02.12.1993 and also the judgment of this court in the case of Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala v. S.M. Ajbanj, (1990) 182 ITR 413 and requested to keep the demand in abeyance and not to treat the petitioner as an assessee in default as visualized under section 220(6) of the Act. However, despite the pendency of the above application before the Assessing Officer, the second respondent Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice of demand dated 21.05.2015 under rule 2 of the Second Schedule of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay the demand of Rs. 22,94,74,880/- within a period of fifteen days, failing which coercive action would be taken against the petitioner and stating that the petitioner would be liable for interest under section 220(2) of the Act from the date of issue of notice and other incidental charges. The Tax Recovery officer also issued a notice dated 28.07.2015 under section 226(3) of the Act to the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Varachha, Surat, where the petitioner has a bank account No. 0533