Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Damoh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)And Another

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-6095 of 2019 [Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Damoh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)and another] [26][-][03][-][2019]Jabalpur, Dated : Shri A.P. Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. This is a pre-emptive petition to restrain the respondents from passing an order of assessment. The factual background is that the petitioner bank is a Co-operative Bank and as an assessee is liable to pay tax. Petitioner is also responsible to deduct TDS and deposit it to the credit of the Central Government. A survey under Section 133A was carried out on 15.3.2016 at business premises of the petitioner Bank to verify the compliance of tax deducted at source. A notice under Section 131 was also issued to the General Manager of the Bank to furnish necessary details along with supporting documents. Petitioner instead of answering to the show cause notice, submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2018 u/s 201 of the Act for the F.Y. 2011-12 was barred by limitation and as such proceedings were liable to be closed. The department did not agree with the contention and rejected it vide Annexure/P-2, hence this writ petition for the relief as stated above. After having heard Shri A.P. Shrivastava, Advocate at length and considering the material placed on record, it is clear that petitioner has been asked to show cause before passing final order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory provisions and preempt departmental authorities from exercising statutory powers under the Actthrough this misconceived writ petition. Against such an order, the aggrieved party has an adequate and efficacious departmental remedy, therefore, at this juncture, we are not inclined to put paid to the show cause notice and the proceedings initiated thereunder. The reliance placed on the decisions of Gujarat and Bombay High Court are clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, hence, they would not come to the rescure of petitioner. We deliberately refrain ourselves from making any observation touching the merit of the case, lest it may cause prejudice to the petitioner or the revenue as the case may be, in the final outcome of the proceedings. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of summarily. Ordered accordingly. (S.K. SETH) CHIEF JUSTICE (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE mn MANOJ NAIR