Wp/146671/2020 Of Drn. Infrastructure Pvt.ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13[th] DAY OF JULY 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM -WP NO 146671 OF 2020 (TIT) BETWEEN DRN. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD., 110 NAYAK HOUSE, GOKUL ROAD, DOLLARS COLONY, HUBBALLI-580030 DIST : DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DINESH S/O. RAMACHANDRA NAYAK AGE : 53 YEARS, OCC : MANAGING DIRECTOR, R/O : NO.18, YASHODAN, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAY NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580032, DIST : DHARWAD (BY SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND 1.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001 CPC BENGALURU BENGALURU-560001 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERR OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) CIRCLE 16(2), BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV. FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE BEARING COMMUNICATION REFERENCE NO.CPC/1718/C94/1886051513 DATED:23.07.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER COMPANY TO REMIT THE ALLEGED OUTSTANDING TDS AMOUNT AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The top noted writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned demand notice bearing Communication Reference No.CPC/1718/ C94/1886051513 dated:23.07.2019 passed by the 1[st]respondent. 2.Sri. Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit to this Court that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. 3.He would also submit to this Court that unless petitioner’s exhaust remedy of appeal he has no locus standi to question the demand notice and this Court cannot examine and review the demand notice which is not permissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4.To this submission, counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to dispose of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance before the competent forum. 5.Having taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition questioning the demand notice cannot be examined at this stage. 6.In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach competent authority in accordance with law. Vb/- SD/- JUDGE