Cwjc/17958/2016 Of Shapoorji Paloonji And Company Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17958 of 2016 ====================================================== Shapoorji Paloonji & Company Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under theCompanies Act, 1956 having its Corporate office at S.P. Centre, 41/44 MinooDesai Marg, P.O.+P.S. Colaba, Mumbai-400005 (Maharashtra) and Branchoffice at Dr. Kalam Agricultural College Project, Village- Arra Bari, P.O.Raipur, P.S. Raipur, District- Kishanganj through its Additional GeneralManager, Pradip Kumar Ghosh, son of Sri Amiya Kumar Ghosh, resident ofDeodar Place, Garia Station Road, P.O. Garia, P.S. Sonepur, Kolkata- 700084. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), having its office at Central RevenueBuilding, Beerchand Patel Path, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna2. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-Begusarai, Bihar 3. Dy. General Manager, Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Ltd.C/o- Baldau Prasad Keshri, Mayakunj, Near Guddu Pokhar, Purnea. ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mrs. Archana Sinha, Standing Counsel Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAYORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 12-01-2018 Challenging the notice Annexure-A-3 and A-2issued by the competent authority raising a demand with regardto deduction of tax at source in the execution of the contractentered into between the petitioner and the Bihar State BuildingConstruction Corporation Ltd. C.W.J.C. No. 17958 of 2016 hasbeen filed by the contractor Shapoorji Paloonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, wefind that primarily it is the case of the petitioner before us thatthe petitioner is an assessee before the TDS Circle 2(2), Mumbaiand with regard to the contract in question tax at the rate of0.5% has already been made by the Building Corporation anddeposited with the Income Tax authorities at Mumbai, as isevident from the certificate issued by the Assessing Authority atMumbai vide Annexure-1. It is contended that once for the same work and forthe same financial year tax has been deducted at Mumbai,further demand by the authorities at Patna is unsustainable. However, it is the case of the department nowbefore us that the tax has to be deducted at the rate of 2% andnot at the rate of 0.5% and, therefore, the demand notices havebeen issued. Petitioner refutes the aforesaid and submits that thetax has been correctly deducted and nothing further remains tobe paid. That being so, the petitioner should point out allthese facts along with relevant statutory provisions and circularsapplicable to the Assessing Authority, and thereafter it would for the Assessing Authority to take note of the return filed by thepetitioner for the relevant year and pass an appropriate orderwith regard to the demand made. Accordingly, we grant liberty to the petitioner toraise all the objections with regard to the demand contained inAnnexure-A-2 and A-3 afresh before the Assessing Officer. TheAssessing Officer shall consider objection of the petitioner, takenote of the grievance and thereafter pass an appropriate orderdeciding the objection of the petitioner and only thereafterproceed to effect the deduction in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) P.K.P./- (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) AFR/NAFRN.A.F.R.CAV DATEN.A. Uploading Date16.01.2018Transmission Date