Nafr v. Union Of India

-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURWPT No. 88 of 2020 1. M/s J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd Through The General Manager(Accounts), Village Malpurikhurd, Khasadih, Post Ahiwara, TahsilDhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh (Accounts), Village Malpurikhurd, Khasadih, Post Ahiwara, TahsilDhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, IncomeTax Department (Department Of Revenue), North Block, SecretariatBuilding, New Delhi.Tax Department (Department Of Revenue), North Block, SecretariatBuilding, New Delhi. 2. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (T D S), Income- Tax Department,Office Of The Income Tax Officer, TDS, ACIT/ DCIT (TDS), Raipur,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Office Of The Income Tax Officer, TDS, ACIT/ DCIT (TDS), Raipur,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department OfMineral Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Mineral Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. District Mining Officer, Mining Office, Collectorate Campus, Durg,District : Durg, ChhattisgarhDistrict : Durg, Chhattisgarh ----- Respondents For Petitioner :Mr. N. Naha Roy, AdvocateFor Resp. No. 1/UoI :Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, A.S.G For Resp. No. 1/UoI :Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, A.S.G For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Amit Choudhari, Standing Counsel For Respondents : Ms. Naushina A. Ali, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Naushina A. Ali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 03.09.2020 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice Annexure P-1 dated 21.08.2020; whereby the petitioner has been called upon to1 dated 21.08.2020; whereby the petitioner has been called upon to participate in the proceedings that has been drawn under theprovision of Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The present is a third round of litigation at the same stage. Earlierround of litigation was WPT No. 51 of 2020 which was disposed offon 09.03.2020. The second was WPT No. 60/2020 which wasdisposed off on 08.06.2020, while disposing off the second writpetition on 08.06.2020, this Court in very categorical terms haddirected the petitioner to approach the Department and furnish allrelevant documents in-respect-of the payment details that thepetitioner has made to the State authorities and also submit his replyto the show-cause notice issued and it was further directed thatsubject to the petitioner furnishing the Statement of Oath and thedetails of the payment made, the Income Tax Department shallscrutinize all these documents and then reach to a specificconclusion, whether the petitioner would be an assessee in defaultor not ?round of litigation was WPT No. 51 of 2020 which was disposed offon 09.03.2020. The second was WPT No. 60/2020 which wasdisposed off on 08.06.2020, while disposing off the second writpetition on 08.06.2020, this Court in very categorical terms haddirected the petitioner to approach the Department and furnish allrelevant documents in-respect-of the payment details that thepetitioner has made to the State authorities and also submit his replyto the show-cause notice issued and it was further directed thatsubject to the petitioner furnishing the Statement of Oath and thedetails of the payment made, the Income Tax Department shallscrutinize all these documents and then reach to a specificconclusion, whether the petitioner would be an assessee in defaultor not ? 3. The petitioner subsequently is said to have furnished the detailsavailable with him in respect of the payments made to the Stateauthorities under the District Mineral Foundation as also paid to theDistrict Mining Officer. Subsequently, the respondent-authoritieshave now issued Annexure P-1 calling upon the petitioner to submithis explanation as to why they should not be treated as “anassessee in default” upon his failure to furnish these details. available with him in respect of the payments made to the Stateauthorities under the District Mineral Foundation as also paid to theDistrict Mining Officer. Subsequently, the respondent-authoritieshave now issued Annexure P-1 calling upon the petitioner to submithis explanation as to why they should not be treated as “anassessee in default” upon his failure to furnish these details. 4. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire detailshave already been submitted to the Department and there is nothingfurther left available with the petitioner to be provided and therespondent-authorities seems to have ignored those details whichthe petitioner has provided and have now with a pre-determinedmind have issued Annexure P-1 dated 21.08.2020. have already been submitted to the Department and there is nothingfurther left available with the petitioner to be provided and therespondent-authorities seems to have ignored those details whichthe petitioner has provided and have now with a pre-determinedmind have issued Annexure P-1 dated 21.08.2020. 5. At this juncture, the Standing counsel for the Department submitsthat it is only a notice not an order, calling upon the petitioner tofurnish whatever he has with him and give explanation as regardsnotice sent to the petitioner. Subject to the petitioner furnishingappropriate explanation as well as the information that he has withhim, the same would be scrutinized and appropriate order would bepassed in accordance with law. According to the Standing counsel,the petitioner should not have apprehension as of now till the entireverification and scrutinization of documents that he has submitted isdone. that it is only a notice not an order, calling upon the petitioner tofurnish whatever he has with him and give explanation as regardsnotice sent to the petitioner. Subject to the petitioner furnishingappropriate explanation as well as the information that he has withhim, the same would be scrutinized and appropriate order would bepassed in accordance with law. According to the Standing counsel,the petitioner should not have apprehension as of now till the entireverification and scrutinization of documents that he has submitted isdone. 6. Given the said submissions that have been made by the counsel forthe parties on either side, this Court is of the opinion that nothingfurther remains for adjudication at this stage. Since the orderassailed is only a notice and the petitioner is expected to appearbefore the authorities and give his explanation and also explain thedetails of payment that he has made to the District MineralFoundation as well as to the District Mining Officer, thereafter therespondent-authorities are expected to take a decision on its meritsthe parties on either side, this Court is of the opinion that nothingfurther remains for adjudication at this stage. Since the orderassailed is only a notice and the petitioner is expected to appearbefore the authorities and give his explanation and also explain thedetails of payment that he has made to the District MineralFoundation as well as to the District Mining Officer, thereafter therespondent-authorities are expected to take a decision on its merits Rahul Rahul in accordance with law. Annexure P-1 is a notice calling upon thepetitioner on the 31.08.2020 it is expected that the Department shallprovide the petitioner another opportunity to appear before them andto submit his explanations and to explain upon the documents thathe has submitted, before taking a final decision. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition standsdisposed offdisposed off Sd/-(P. Sam Koshy)Judge