Antiquariat (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax (Tds), Jaipur & Ors

In The High Court of Judicature for RajasthanJaipur Bench, JaipurO R D E RS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17274/2011 Antiquariat (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax (TDS), Jaipur & Ors. Date Of Order :: 12.12.2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filedassailing the notices seeking queries inconsequences of TDS verification for therelevant assessment years. A show cause notice was served uponthe petitioner and after taking its reply intoconsideration for the relevant assessmentyears, final show cause notice dt.17.11.2011has been served upon the petitioner U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act regardingthe charge/commission paid by the petitionerfor availing credit card facility for therelevant financial years and the petitionerhas been called upon to submit its writtenobjections/reply, which, as informed to thisCourt, has been submitted by the petitioner.However, its grievance is that what is beingdesired by the respondent is impossible taskand the petitioner has represented to theCentral Board of Direct Taxes and certainqueries have been made by the Board vide itsletter dt.08.11.2011 (Annx.5) and according tohim the representation submitted is still pending consideration and whatever directionwill be issued by the CBDT is always bindingupon the department in view of Sec.119 of theIncome Tax Act and his request is that thedepartment may defer the proceedings till theoutcome of his representation which is pendingwith the CBDT seeking direction from theauthority. What is being prayed for by thepetitioner at this stage, it appears to be ahypothetical situation and merely because somerepresentation submitted by the petitioner ispending before the CBDT that could not beconsidered to be a basis for the authority todefer the proceedings and if directives areissued by CBDT at later stage, definitely willbe taken note by the departmental authoritiesbut the pending proceedings cannot be deferredfor indefinite period but at the presentmoment when there is no adverse decision ofthe authority communicated which may causeprejudice to the petitioner there appears nojustification for this Court to interfere inits equitable jurisdiction U/Art 226 of theConstitution at this stage. However, thepetitioner is always at liberty to submitrepresentation before the Commissioner, IncomeTax, apprising with what CBDT is examining inreference to its letter dt.08.11.2011 and ifthat is being made by the petitioner it is always expected from the authority to considerthe same in right earnest. Consequently, this Court does not findany force in the instant petition whichaccordingly stands dismissed. VS Shekhawat/-p.317274cw11Dec12FnlDsps.doc (Ajay Rastogi),J.