Rep. By Its Authorized Signatory,5Th Floor, Spencer Plaza v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tds Circle-I, Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS W.P.No.373 of 2014 Dishnet Wireless Limited, rep. by its Authorized Signatory,5th Floor, Spencer Plaza,No.769, Anna Salai,Chennai 600 002.... Petitioner vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,TDS Circle-I, Room No.711, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121 M.G. Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.TDS Circle-I, Room No.711, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121 M.G. Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,TDS Circle-I, Room No.711, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121 M.G. Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.TDS Circle-I, Room No.711, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121 M.G. Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII,121, M.G. Salai, Nungambakkam,Chennai 600 034.... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records of the 1st respondent comprised in theimpugned demand notice of the 1st respondent bearingRef.ACIT/TDS.CIR.I./DISHNET/2013-14 dated 02.01.2014 and to quash thesame as wholly arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provisions ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and to consequently forbear the respondentsfrom taking any coercive steps towards recovery of the allegedliability pursuant to the order bearing Ref.ITA No.330-339/13-14dated 30.12.2013 till the expiry of the period of limitation forfiling an appeal against the said order under the provisions of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. O R D E R By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this WritPetition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admissionitself. 2.Heard Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned counsel appearingfor the respondents. 3.Challenging the impugned demand notice of the 1st respondentvide Ref.ACIT/TDS.CIR.I./DISHNET/2013-14 dated 02.01.2014, seeking toquash the same and for a consequential direction to forbear therespondents from taking any coercive steps towards recovery of thealleged liability pursuant to the order bearing Ref.ITA No.330-339/13-14 dated 30.12.2013 till the expiry of the period oflimitation for filing an appeal against the said order under theprovisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has come upwith this Writ Petition. 4.According to the petitioner, it is engaged in the businessof providing cellular mobile services pursuant to the licence grantedby the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, withinvarious telecom circles across India and is having PAN and TANnumbers under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the contention of thepetitioner that any action for recovery of TDS liability in terms ofthe impugned notice would render the statutory right available to thepetitioner to seek stay of demand under and in terms of theprovisions of Sections 253 and 254 of the Act. It is their furthercontention that levy of such exorbitant and legally baseless demandto the tune of over Rs.46 crores and any action of the respondentsfor such recovery of the demand would cause immeasurable andirreparable harm and hardship to their business operations. 5.In the impugned order, it is stated that the appealapplication filed by the petitioner/assessee with the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-VII, has been disposed of on 30.12.2013, with adirection to the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount ofRs.46,18,15,768/- immediately and produce the relevant challan,either personally or through their authorised representative, so thatthey may be given due credit for the same. Apprehending that theremay be coercive action for recovering that amount, the petitioner isbefore this Court. 5.In the impugned order, it is stated that the appealapplication filed by the petitioner/assessee with the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-VII, has been disposed of on 30.12.2013, with adirection to the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount ofRs.46,18,15,768/- immediately and produce the relevant challan,either personally or through their authorised representative, so thatthey may be given due credit for the same. Apprehending that theremay be coercive action for recovering that amount, the petitioner isbefore this Court. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that thoughthe time limit of 60 days to prefer an appeal from the date ofpassing of the impugned order, i.e. from 30.12.2013 is available tothe petitioner, without waiting for the same, the respondents havehastily proceeded to send a reminder to the petitioner on 02.01.2014informing him of the immediate payment of the outstanding amount. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand against thepetitioner. 7.Refuting the said submission, learned counsel appearing forthe Revenue would submit that when the original authority has passedthe order, it is not incumbent on the Revenue authorities to keep thematter pending till the petitioner moves the Appellate forum.Therefore, mere intimation to the petitioner to pay the outstandingamount cannot be questioned in law. 8.It is not in dispute that the original authority passed theassessment order on 30.12.2013, as against which, further appeal liesto the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act andthe time for moving the Tribunal is 60 days from the date of receiptof a copy of the order. As the appellate remedy is available to thepetitioner, it could be accepted and the authority may thereafterproceed with the matter. However, the respondents have intimatedrecovery proceedings against the petitioner even when there is areasonable time for him to prefer an appeal. 9.It is true that in the absence of any legal impediment, theauthority is empowered to proceed further in the matter including thedemand for immediate payment. At the same time, it is all the moreimportant that the authority should have reasonableness in takingaction when there is a statutory time limit for filing an appeal. Itis always expected that any person aggrieved shall have the right ofappeal when the statute prescribes so and he may have time to preferan appeal before the Appellate Authority for redressal of hisgrievance against the order passed by the original authority. Such acourse has to be adopted within a reasonable time and thereafter, theauthority may consider that the person aggrieved has not taken thematter on appeal and proceed further in making the demand forimmediate payment. 10.A perusal of the impugned proceedings would give a clearimpression to this Court that such a fair and reasonable time has notbeen properly looked into by the authority for making the demand, ashe has immediately sent a reminder dated 02.01.2014, when the demandnotice was passed only on 30.12.2013. The approach made by therespondent in this matter cannot be appreciated, since there isunreasonableness in his action. 11.In view of the above, respondents are directed not to takeany coercive steps for recovery against the petitioner, till theappeal time is exhausted. Thereafter, the respondents are at libertyto recover the amount from the petitioner in accordance with law oras per the order of the appellate authority, as the case may be. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 to 3 are closed. 11.In view of the above, respondents are directed not to takeany coercive steps for recovery against the petitioner, till theappeal time is exhausted. Thereafter, the respondents are at libertyto recover the amount from the petitioner in accordance with law oras per the order of the appellate authority, as the case may be. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 to 3 are closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.abeTo :1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,TDS Circle-I, Room No.711, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121 M.G. Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,TDS Circle-I, Room No.711, 7th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121 M.G. Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII,121, M.G. Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.1 CC To Mr.T.Pramod Kumar, Advocate SR NO.10561 CC To Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Advocate SR NO.1074W.P.No.373 of 2014kk[co]gp/27.1