Higm Court Of Chhatrisgarh Atbilaspur v. Respondents Commissionerothers. Of Income— Tax (Tds)

IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCQURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASFUR (C.G.lWrit Petition (T) No. -^^of 2013 ^ M/s Chhattisgarh State PowerDistribution Company (hereinafterreferred to as CSPDCL) LimiteddulyincorporatedundertheCompanies Act 1956, having itsofficeatVidyutBhawan,Danganiya,atRaipurChhattisgarh, through authorizedsignatory and DGM (Finance) R.K.Verma, S/o Shri R.S. Dhurandher,aged about 40 years, R/o VidyutSewa Bhawan, Ground Floor P.S.Danganiya, RaipurR.K.VermaS/oShriR.S.Dhurandhar, aged about 40 years,R/o Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, GroundFloorP.S.DanganiyEl,Raipur,DGM(Finance)andauthorizedsignatory of the petitioner no. 1 PETITIONER:1.^^s^^<(^J^»y 2VERSUSRESPONDENTS: 1.^2.3.~s The Coininissioner of Incoine Tax(TDS),ReenaApartments,PachpediNaka, Raipur (C.G.) Apartments, Joint Conunissioner of IncomeTax(TDS),Reena[Apartments,]PachpediNaka, Raipur (C.G.)1'•DeputyCommissionerIncoraeTax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.) Before: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his comoanionJudges of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature forChhattlsgarh at Bilaspur. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of suitable directions. orders or writsincluding writs in the nature of inandanius certiorarietc. ~s HIGM COURT OF CHHATriSGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETmON.CTLNo, 3Zof2Q13 PETITIONER :M/s.Chhattisga'rhStatePowerDistributionCompanyLimited&Andther.VERSUSRESPONDENTSCommissionerOthers. of Income— Tax (TDS) & WRITPET!T!QN (T) No. 39 of 2013 PETITIONERM/s. Chhattisgarh State Power TradingCompany Limited & Another.VERSUSRESPONDENTS :Commissioner of Income Tax CTDS) &Others. WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQNOF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present:Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (OPEN COURT)(Passed on 11th day ofApril, 2013) 1.Since common facts and question of law are involved in these petitions i.e.W.P. (T) No. 37 and 39 of 2013, and as such, the petitions are bejngdisposed of by this common order.W.P. (T) No. 37 and 39 of 2013, and as such, the petitions are bejngdisposed of by this common order. 2.Grievance of the petitioners was to the reduction of 30 days as prescribedunder section 220(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 to 5 days in theimpugned notice dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P/1) under section 156, ibid. 3.This Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, passed an interim orderon 02.04.2013 and 03.04.2013, respectively, not totake any coercive stepsfor a period of 30 days from the date of the notice i.e. 18.03.2013. Nbw,reduction of 30 days to 5 days has been resolved and the petitioner has got30 days time to act upon the notice of demand under section 156 of the ofAct, 1961. ~s Amit 4.Clause 6 of the said notice clearly states that if the petitioner intends toappeal against the assessment/fine/penalty, it may present an appeal underPart A of Chapter XX of the Act, 1961 to the Cohimissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice in FormNo. 35, duly stamped and verified as laid down in that form.appeal against the assessment/fine/penalty, it may present an appeal underPart A of Chapter XX of the Act, 1961 to the Cohimissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice in FormNo. 35, duly stamped and verified as laid down in that form. 5.Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner had already taken recourse to statutory appellate forum.petitioner had already taken recourse to statutory appellate forum. 6.In view of that, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. Since theprotection for 30 days from 18.03.2013 was granted from the date of itsissue, the same shall continue for a period of 30 days from 18.03.2013.protection for 30 days from 18.03.2013 was granted from the date of itsissue, the same shall continue for a period of 30 days from 18.03.2013. 5.Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner had already taken recourse to statutory appellate forum.petitioner had already taken recourse to statutory appellate forum. 6.In view of that, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. Since theprotection for 30 days from 18.03.2013 was granted from the date of itsissue, the same shall continue for a period of 30 days from 18.03.2013.protection for 30 days from 18.03.2013 was granted from the date of itsissue, the same shall continue for a period of 30 days from 18.03.2013. 7.If the period of demand notice is reduced from 30 days to 5 days, theassessee 'would not be in a position to avail the remedy provided underclause 6 of the said notice. The authorities, while issuing notice undersection 156 ibid, have not considered the remedy avaiiable to the petitionerunder the clause (6) of the said notice while redudng the period of 30 daysto 5 days. On that account also, the assessee was entitled to 30 days inlieu of 5 days.assessee 'would not be in a position to avail the remedy provided underclause 6 of the said notice. The authorities, while issuing notice undersection 156 ibid, have not considered the remedy avaiiable to the petitionerunder the clause (6) of the said notice while redudng the period of 30 daysto 5 days. On that account also, the assessee was entitled to 30 days inlieu of 5 days. 8.With the aforesaid observation and direction, both these petitions standdisposed of.disposed of.9.No order asto costs. sai-Satish K. Agaifaoti iJudge