IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6234 of 2009 Mayaputra Services Pvt.Ltd., Private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act having its office at Moti Nagar Sindri, P.S.- Sindri, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its Manager, Punj Kumar Singh, son of Shri Ram Ballabh Prasad Singh, resident of Village Dhandia, P.S.-Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Patna 3. Asstt. Director, District Mining Office, Patna. Respondent/s Appearance : For Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate. For Respondent/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate. CORAM: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 14-09-2020 Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- i) that notice dated 18.04.2009 directing payment of tax collectable at source under Section 206C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after called Act) issued by respondent no.3 (as contained in Annexure 11) be quashed. ii) for declaration that Section 206C of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to contract of settlement of Balu Ghats. iii) for declaration that Section 206C of Act apply only at point of debiting of amounts payable by assessee or lessee to account of licensee or lessor at time of receipt of such amount from said buyer and not at any point of time subsequent thereto. iv) for granting any other relief (s) to which Patna High Court CWJC No.6234 of 2009 dt.14-09-2020 2/4 petitioner is otherwise found entitled to. Assailing impugned order dated 18.04.2009 passed by Assistant Director (Annexure-11), Sri D.V.Pathy, learned counsel for petitioner, while inviting our attention to judgment passed by Hon ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage(P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2007(8) SCC 463; decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 16015 of 2015 titled as Nai Rajdhani Path Parmandal, Road Construction Department Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. and order dated 25.5.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, in ITA No. 213/Pat/2007, contends that Mining Officer had no authority or jurisdiction to raise demand of TCS with respect to transactions pertaining to financial years 2007-09. It is next contended that at this point in time, more so in view of department s own circular as noticed by Hon ble Apex Court, as also findings returned by Tribunal, amount pertaining to TCS cannot be recovered from petitioner. Also mechanism provided under Section 206(c) of Income Tax Act would be unavailable to recover of amount. Well, we are of considered view that all these Patna High Court CWJC No.6234 of 2009 dt.14-09-2020 3/4 contentions can be raised by petitioner, in fact already stands raised vide representation dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure-8), which is still pending consideration before authority. As such we see no reason to interfere with impugned notice dated 18.04.2009 (Annexure-11), more so from return filed by petitioner, it does not appear as to whether, and if any, amount of component of TCS was deposited by petitioner. Also Mrs. Archana Sinha contends that only for year in question issue is pending, as for subsequent period petitioner has already deposited amount. Well, issues raised before us are left open to be considered by appropriate authority which in instant case is Assistant Director who issued notice dated 8.04.2009. We are not in agreement with submission made by Sri Pathy that Assistant Director has already prejudged issue inasmuch as he has asked petitioner to pay amount by way of Demand Draft. We are of view that impugned notice cannot be read in such manner. Officer has to adjudicate amount only after hearing parties and affording adequate opportunity of filing reply and substantial compliance of principles of natural justice. officer has only asked Patna High Court CWJC No.6234 of 2009 dt.14-09-2020 4/4 petitioner to deposit amount, through Bank Draft, which is due and payable in accordance with law. In any event we clarify that amount mentioned in notice be not construed to be determination of sum due and payable by petitioner. As such, we direct petitioner to appear before Assistant Director on 5th October, 2020, on which date petitioner shall file additional material in support of his earlier representation dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure-8). Thereafter after hearing parties, Assistant Director shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Parties undertake to fully co-operate. Since matter pertains to years 2007-09, we direct that all proceedings must be concluded positively within period of two months thereafter and if required through virtual mode. Petition stands disposed of. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) sujit/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date Mayaputra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar / Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Patna / Asstt. Director, District Mining Office, Patna