Mayaputra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar / Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) / Asstt. Mining Officer, Patna
[Citation -2020-LL-0914-37]

Citation 2020-LL-0914-37
Appellant Name Mayaputra Services Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name State of Bihar / Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) / Asstt. Mining Officer, Patna
Court HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/09/2020
Assessment Year 2007-08, 2008-09
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags adequate opportunity • bank draft • tax collected at source
Bot Summary: CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-09-2020 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): i) that the notice dated 12.3.2008 issued by the respondent no.3 be quashed. Well, we are of the considered view that all these Patna High Court CWJC No.8363 of 2008 dt.14-09-2020 3/4 contentions can be raised by the petitioner, in fact already stands raised vide representation dated 14.3.2008, which is still pending consideration before the authority. As such we see no reason to interfere with the impugned notice dated 12.3.2008, more so from the return filed by the petitioner it does not appear as to whether, and if any, amount of component of TCS was deposited by the petitioner. We are not in agreement with the submission made by Sri Pathy that the Mining Officer has already prejudged the issue inasmuch as he has asked the petitioner to pay the amount by way of a Demand Draft. The officer has only asked the Patna High Court CWJC No.8363 of 2008 dt.14-09-2020 4/4 petitioner to deposit the amount, through a Bank Draft, which is due and payable in accordance with law. In any event we clarify that the amount mentioned in the notice be not construed to be determination of the sum due and payable by the petitioner. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Mining Officer on 5th October, 2020, on which date the petitioner shall file additional material in support of his earlier representation dated 14.3.2008.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8363 of 2008 Mayaputra Services Pvt.Ltd., Private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act having its office at Moti Nagar Sindri, P.S.- Sindri, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) and having its branch office at Koilwar, District- Bhojpur (Ara), Bihar through its Director Punj Kumar Singh, son of Shri Ram Ballabh Pratap Singh, Resident of Dhandia, P.S.- Koilwar, Distt. Bhojpur (Ara). Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) 3. Asstt. Mining Officer, 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 12.3.2008 issued by respondent no.3 (as contained in Annexure 7) be quashed. ii) for declaration that provisions of Section 206C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after called Act) are not applicable to contract of settlement of Balu Ghats. iii) for declaration that provisions of 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.8363 of 2008 dt.14-09-2020 2/4 petitioner is otherwise found entitled to. Assailing impugned order dated 12.3.2008 passed by Assistant Mining Officer, Patna (Annexure-7), 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 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 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.8363 of 2008 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 12.3.2008 (Annexure-7), 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 Mining Officer who issued notice dated 12.3.2008. We are not in agreement with submission made by Sri Pathy that Mining Officer 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.8363 of 2008 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 Mining Officer 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, Mining Officer shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Parties undertake to fully co- operate. Since matter pertains to years 2006-07 and 2007-08, 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) / Asstt. Mining Officer, Patna
Report Error