M/S.wabco India Limited ( v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 1(1) Bsnl Building, Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.03.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.1649 of 2018 &W.M.P.Nos.2061 & 4137 of 2016 M/s.Wabco India Limited (PAN: ) Rep. by its Chief Financial OfficerMr.R.S.Raja Gopal Sastry Plot No. 3(SP), III Main Road Ambattur Industrial EstateChennai-600 058. .. Petitionerv. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation 1(1) BSNL Building, Room No.407 4th Floor, Tower 1 No.16, Greams Road Chennai-600 006. .. Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the recordsin PAN : , dated 09.01.2018 on the file of therespondent and quash the notice. For Petitioner : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar For Respondent : Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior StandingCounsel takes notice for the respondent. By consent, themain writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at theadmission stage itself. 2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition toissue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records dated09.01.2018 on the file of the respondent and to quash the notice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The petitioner has challenged the show cause noticeissued by the respondent dated 09.01.2018 under section 163(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the impugned notice, therespondent called upon the petitioner to show cause as to whyfor the purpose of Sections 160 to 163 of the said Act, thepetitioner should not be treated as the agent in terms of theprovisions of Sections 163(1)(c) of the said Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the impugned show cause notice issued by therespondent is without jurisdiction as the provisions ofSections 163(1)(c) of the said Act are not satisfied. Thelearned counsel also submitted that under Section 163 of thesaid Act , to treat a person in India as a representativeassessee/agent of a non-resident, the non-resident must be inreceipt of any income from or through the aforesaid person, inIndia and that in the petitioner's case, M/s.Clayton DewandreHoldings Limited is not in receipt of any income from thepetitioner. In these circumstances, the learned counselsubmitted that show cause notice issued by the respondent is notsustainable. 5. Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent submitted that therespondent had only issued a show cause notice calling upon thepetitioner to show cause. Therefore, there is no necessity forinterfering with the shows cause notice issued by the respondentand the petitioner may be called upon to submit his reply andthe respondent may be directed to consider the same and passorders, in accordance with law. 6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner that the show cause notice issued by the respondentis against the provisions of Sections 163(1)(c) of the Actcan be raised in the reply to be submitted by the petitioner andin such an event, the respondent has to consider the same andpass orders. The petitioner has challenged only the showcause notice and the respondent has not passed any order so far.That being the case, by giving a reply to the respondent for theshow cause notice dated 09.01.2018 would not prejudice thepetitioner in any manner whatsoever. That apart, I do not findany reason to interfere with the show cause notice issued by therespondent for the reason that the petitioner has got a right togive a reply to the same. 6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner that the show cause notice issued by the respondentis against the provisions of Sections 163(1)(c) of the Actcan be raised in the reply to be submitted by the petitioner andin such an event, the respondent has to consider the same andpass orders. The petitioner has challenged only the showcause notice and the respondent has not passed any order so far.That being the case, by giving a reply to the respondent for theshow cause notice dated 09.01.2018 would not prejudice thepetitioner in any manner whatsoever. That apart, I do not findany reason to interfere with the show cause notice issued by therespondent for the reason that the petitioner has got a right togive a reply to the same. 7. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in thewrit petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitionershall give his reply to the show cause notice dated 09.01.2018,within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondent shalldecide the matter, on merits and in accordance with law, aftergiving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner andalso taking into consideration the reply to be submitted by thepetitioner independently, without taking into consideration theaverments stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writpetition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarRj To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation 1(1), BSNL Building, Room No.407 4th Floor, Tower 1, No.16, Greams RoadChennai-600 006. +1cc to Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan,, Advocate, S.R.No.21060+1cc to Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate, S.R.No.21551W.P.No.1649 of 2018 &W.M.P.Nos.2061 & 4137 of 2016cs/26/03/18