The Deputy Collector (Revenue) (North) Pondicherry, Revenue Complex, Kamaraj Salai, Saram, Pudhucherry – 605 013 v. The Income Tax Officer Tds Ward Deivanayagam Pillai Thottam Muthialpet Puducherry – 605 005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.06.2018CORAMTHE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMW.P.No.14445 of 2018 &W.M.P.No.17056 of 2018 1.Union of India Rep.by the Secretary to Government (Revenue), Puducherry – 605 001. 2.The Deputy Collector (Revenue) (North) Pondicherry, Revenue Complex, Kamaraj Salai, Saram, Pudhucherry – 605 013. ... Petitionersvs The Income Tax Officer TDS Ward Deivanayagam Pillai ThottamMuthialpetPuducherry – 605 005. ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records onthe file of the respondent in order No.Arrear Demand /TDS/1/CHED 06291 F / 2017-18, dated 8.1.2018 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kumaran Government Advocate for Mr.A.Gandhiraj(GP)Pondicherry For Respondent : Ms.Hema Murali Krishnan Senior Counsel & Naveen Durai BabuO R D E R Heard Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate forMr.A.Gandhiraj, learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry,appearing for the petitioners and Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan,learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner is the Secretary to Government (Revenue),Puducherry and the Deputy Collector (Revenue) (North)Pondicherry, who is the Land Acquisition Officer. Challengein this Writ petition is to a notice issued by the respondentdated 08.01.2018 informing the 2nd petitioner that onverification of the office record and TRACES account, it isnoticed that a sum of Rs.7,38,58,242/- is outstanding asarrears demand for TDS default in various years. The 2ndpetitioner has been advised to pay the demand and treat theimpugned notice as final opportunity, upon failure to complywith the same and pay the arrears will result in initiation ofcoercive action of recovery of demand without any furthernotice. 3.The petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned communication by contending that Section 194 LAof the Income Tax Act came into force in the year 2004and the same was communicated to the office of the 2ndpetitioner by the Income Tax officer, TDS Ward, Puducherryin the year 2008 vide letter dated 06.02.2008, i.e.,almost four years from the date of effect of theprovisions of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that therespondent was not justified in demanding tax from the year2004 onwards including interest. Further it is submittedby the learned Government Advocate that as per Section 194LA of the Act, agricultural lands are exempted fromdeduction of tax at source when compensation is paid foracquiring agricultural lands. It is submitted that theorder passed by the Assessing Officer was put to challengeand the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowed theappeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration andthe officer, by individual orders, held that the lands,whichwereacquiredwereclassifiedasnon-agricultural lands, such as, house, flats etc., andtherefore, tax ought to have been deducted at source. 4.As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel forthe Revenue, the petitioner having not questioned theorder passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w Section254 of the Act and the consequential demand notice issuedunder Section 156 of the Act, both dated 30.03.2014, cannotat this stage of the matter impugne a communication sentby the respondent granting a final opportunity to thepetitioners to pay the demand. Therefore, it is contendedthat unless and until the petitioner has filed an appealagainst the order dated 30.03.2014, the question ofentertaining a Writ petition against the impugnedcommunication does not arise.the Revenue, the petitioner having not questioned theorder passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w Section254 of the Act and the consequential demand notice issuedunder Section 156 of the Act, both dated 30.03.2014, cannotat this stage of the matter impugne a communication sentby the respondent granting a final opportunity to thepetitioners to pay the demand. Therefore, it is contendedthat unless and until the petitioner has filed an appealagainst the order dated 30.03.2014, the question ofentertaining a Writ petition against the impugnedcommunication does not arise. 5. As pointed out earlier, the stand taken by the Revenueis perfectly justified and is in order. Therefore, this Courtcannot entertain the Writ petition challenging the impugnedcommunication, which is a consequence upon the assessment orderpassed dated 30.03.2014. However, the petitioner is not remedyless as appeals are maintainable against the orders passedunder Section 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w 254 of the Act. 6.Under normal circumstances, this Court would have rightaway dismissed the Writ petition. However, taking note ofthe submissions made by the learned Government Advocate,that the petitioners shall prosecute the matter before theappellate authority, while holding that the challenge tothe impugned communication is not maintainable, it is leftopen to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority, ifthey are so advised, challenging the order passed by theAssessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w 254of the Act . Since there is a threat of coercive actionbeing initiated against the Government authorities, thisCourt directs the respondent not to initiate any suchaction for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order to enable the petitioners to workouttheir remedy in accordance with law.away dismissed the Writ petition. However, taking note ofthe submissions made by the learned Government Advocate,that the petitioners shall prosecute the matter before theappellate authority, while holding that the challenge tothe impugned communication is not maintainable, it is leftopen to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority, ifthey are so advised, challenging the order passed by theAssessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w 254of the Act . Since there is a threat of coercive actionbeing initiated against the Government authorities, thisCourt directs the respondent not to initiate any suchaction for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order to enable the petitioners to workouttheir remedy in accordance with law. With these observations, this Writ petition is dismissed.No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-) //True Copy// vsa/Rj Sub Assistant Registrar To The Income Tax Officer TDS Ward Deivanayagam Pillai ThottamMuthialpet Puducherry – 605 005. +1cc to The Government Pleader, Advocate, sr.38056 GSP(22/06/2018) W.P.No.14445 of 2018 &W.M.P.No.17056 of 2018