Rakesh Jaiswal & 141 Others v. Union of India Through Commissioner of Income-tax(II), Lucknow & Another - 2017-LL-0406

Citation	2017-LL-0406
Appellant Name	Rakesh Jaiswal & 141 Others
Respondent Name	Union of India Through Commissioner of Income-tax(II), Lucknow & Another
Court	HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	06/04/2017
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	tax at source • collection and recovery of tax
Bot Summary:	Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Alok Mathur and Sri Manish Misra, learned counsels for respondents. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution is directed against deduction of tax under Section 206-C of Income Tax Act, 1961. Counsels for parties, at the outset, stated that dispute raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by this Court's judgment dated 09.05.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3417 of 2002 and other connected petitions, operative part whereof reads as under: In the instant case, all the petitioners, who are Retail Vendors, were granted license under U.P. Excise Act, 1910 at the relevant time and since the Maximum Retail Price was fixed by the Excise Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 41 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, petitioners are excluded from the provisions of Section 206-C in view of the Explanation as petitioners cannot be termed as 'buyer'. The aforesaid case laws are squarely covered in the case of the petitioners. For the reasons and legal position as stated here-in-above, the demands created by the Assessing Authority against the distillery by assuming that they had committed default in not making deduction at source in terms of Section 206-C from the petitioners cannot be sustained and further the distillery who has been arrayed as one of the opposite parties in all the three writ petitions are restrained from deducting any tax at source in view of the provisions of Income Tax Act. With these observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of finally. For the reasons stated in the judgement dated 09.05.2013 passed in Sankatha Shukla and others Vs. Union of India and others, and in the same terms, this writ petition is also disposed of.

Court No. - 3 Case :- MISC. BENCH No.-2826 of 2002 Petitioner :- Rakesh Jaiswal & 141 Others Respondent :- Union Of India Through Commissioner of Income Tax(II), Lucknow & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar,A.K. Pandey,Prashant Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Misra,Ghaus Beg,Mr. Sidharth Dhaon, Alok Mathur, Manish Misra Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J. 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Alok Mathur and Sri Manish Misra, learned counsels for respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution is directed against deduction of tax under Section 206-C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961"). Counsels for parties, at outset, stated that dispute raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by this Court's judgment dated 09.05.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3417 (MB) of 2002 (Sankatha Shukla and others Vs. Union of India and others) and other connected petitions, operative part whereof reads as under: "In instant case, all petitioners, who are Retail Vendors, were granted license under U.P. Excise Act, 1910 at relevant time and since Maximum Retail Price was fixed by Excise Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 41 (e) (iii) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, petitioners are excluded from provisions of Section 206-C in view of Explanation (a) (iii) as petitioners cannot be termed as 'buyer'. Therefore, aforesaid case laws are squarely covered in case of petitioners. For reasons and legal position as stated here-in-above, demands created by Assessing Authority against distillery by assuming that they had committed default in not making deduction at source in terms of Section 206-C from petitioners cannot be sustained and further distillery who has been arrayed as one of opposite parties in all three writ petitions are restrained from deducting any tax at source in view of provisions of Income Tax Act. With these observations, all writ petitions are disposed of finally." 3. For reasons stated in judgement dated 09.05.2013 passed in Sankatha Shukla and others Vs. Union of India and others (supra), and in same terms, this writ petition is also disposed of. Order Date :- 6.4.2017 Pravin Rakesh Jaiswal & 141 Others v. Union of India Through Commissioner of Income-tax(II), Lucknow & Another

Metadata

Judgment