Apeal/298/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-2 v. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax… Appellant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.... Respondents. Mr. Anil Singh, ASG a/w. P.A. Narayanan & Geetika Gandhi forthe Appellant. Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. I.J. Nankani & Ms. Deepa Shetty I/b. M/s. Nankani &Associates for Respondent No.2. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Amicus Curiae for the Respondents. CORAM : S.S. Shinde and A.S. Gadkari, JJ. P.C.:- DATE : 12[th] October 2018. This appeal is filed with following substantive prayer,which reads as under :- “(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for therecords and proceedings of MPID SPL. Case No. 7 of2016 @ 13 of 2016 from the Bombay City Civil &Sessions Court, Mumbai and on perusal of the sameand on further hearing the Appellant, this Hon'bleCourt be pleased to quash and set aside the impugnedorder and direction dated 30.01.2017.” 2.The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing forthe Appellant submits that the impugned order is passed withouthearing the Appellant – Department. The impugned order isdrastic in nature and would affect upon similar cases. 3.We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor Generalappearing for the Appellant, Mr. Nankarni, learned Counselappearing for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Sakhardande, as AmicusCuriae. 4.In our opinion, since the Appellant – Department hasbeen directed to deposit the amount of TDS of Rs. 10,58,065/- sodeposited by National Plastic Industries Ltd. - Respondent No.2 asdeduction of tax at source at the rate of 10%, within 60 days infixed deposit in the Bank of Maharashtra with auto renewaloption. The impugned order drastically affects upon the Appellant– Department. In our opinion, the Special Court ought to haveasked the Respondent No.1 to implead the Appellant – Departmentas party Respondent and thereafter, after affording reasonableopportunity of filing reply/put forth the contentions, ought to haveproceeded to consider the prayer of the Respondent No.1. 5.In the light of above, without entering upon merits ofthe contentions raised, the appropriate course would be to quash and set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugnedorder is quashed and set aside. The MPID Special Case No.7 of2016 @ 13 of 2016 below Exhibit 29 is restored to its original file. 6.The concerned Court to issue notice to the Appellant –Department and other affected parties and dispose of the saidproceedings as expeditiously as possible. 7.With the above observations, the Appeal standsdisposed of. 8.We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande during the course of hearing of this Appeal. ( A.S. Gadkari, J.) (S.S. Shinde, J.)