Wp/18382/2023 Of Sheladia Associates Inc v. Assistant Director Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYOERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 18382 OF 2023Between: Sheladia Associates lnc, ['15825 ]Shady Grove Road, Suite 100, Rockville, MD20850, USA. Represented by its General Manager (Accounts andAdministration), Mr.Shaiiu Sebastian 20850, USA. Represented by its General Manager (Accounts andAdministration), Mr.Shaiiu Sebastian ...pETtnoNER AND 1.Assistant Director of lncome Tax, Office of ADIT (lNT TARN)-2 HYD, AayakarBhavan, Hyderabad - 500004Bhavan, Hyderabad - 5000042.Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Rep., by itsSecretary (Revenue), North Block - New Delhi - 1 10001 Secretary (Revenue), North Block - New Delhi - 1 10001 ...RE''.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ or direction or order more particularly in the nature of a Writof Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quashing the lmpugnedOrder dated 22.06.2023, bearing DIN and Order No. SOi260420231467465 andRequest Number. 467465, for the Financial Yeat 2023-24, passed by RespondentNo. 1 under Section 197 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 as being illegal, arbitrary, inexcess of the 1st Respondents [jurisdiction ]and in violation of establishedprinciples of natural justice and directing the 1st Respondent to grant thePetitioner a NIL rate TDS deduction certificate under Section 197 of ttle lncomeTax Act, ['1961 ]for the Joint Venture Agreement dated 206.202 1 executed betweenthe Petitioner and M/s lntercontinental Consultants 86 Technocrats Private Limited lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section. 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased todispense with the filing of certified copies of lmpugned Order dated 221A612023,bearing DIN and Order No. 50/26042023/467465 and Request Number. 467465, for the Financial Year 2023-24, passed by the l st respondent under section 197 ofthe income tax Act. [1 ]96 [1] lA NO: 2 OF 2023Petition under Section ['151 ]CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]to directthe 1st Respondent to permit the Petitioner to receive payments under the JointVeriture Agreement daled 2810612021 between the Petitioner and M / slntercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited without any TaxDeducted at Source in lndia under Section 195 or any other provisions of thelncome Tax Act, 1961 Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. l. MYTRI Counsel for Respondernt No. 1: SMT. K. MAMATA,SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for Respondernt No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the f('llowing: ORDER I /, HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY&HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.18382 OF 2023 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice l,axmi Naragana Alishettg) This writ petition has been liled by the petitioner seekingthe following relief: Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. l. MYTRI Counsel for Respondernt No. 1: SMT. K. MAMATA,SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for Respondernt No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the f('llowing: ORDER I /, HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY&HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.18382 OF 2023 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice l,axmi Naragana Alishettg) This writ petition has been liled by the petitioner seekingthe following relief: "....to issue a writ or direction or order more particularly inthe nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling forthe records and quashing the impugned order dated22.06.2023, bearing DIN and Order No.SO 126042023 /467465 and request number:467465, for the Financial Year2023-24, passed by respondent No.l under Section 197 of thelncome Tax Act, 1961 as being illegal, arbitrary, in excess ofthe 1't respondent's jurisdiction and in violation of establishedprinciples of natural justice and directing respondent No. I togrant the petitioner a NIL rate TDS deduction certificate underSection 197 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 for the Joint VentureAgreement dated 28.06.2021 executed between the Petitionerand M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and TechnocratsPrivate Limited." 2. Heard Smt.l.Mytri, learned counsel for the petitioner,Smt.K.Mamata, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Generalof India, for respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts leading to liling the present Writ Petitionare that the petitioner is a Professional Consulting Firm with headquarter at Rockville, Maryland, USA, and registered underthe laws of the United States of America [U.S.A]. The petitionercompany is a tax resident of U.S.A, as per the petitioner's TaxResidence Certificate [TRCI from the department of Treasury,dated Ol.12.2022. The petitioner is engaged in comprehensiveconsultancy services including but not limited to IndependentConsultancy Services, Independent Engineer Services, Pre-Tender Services and Traffic Engineering, Tendering Assistance,Environmental Engineering, Architectural and RuralDevelopment and etc., 4 . The petitiorrer and M / s. Intercontinental Consultants &Technocrats Privzrte Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'lCT), acompany incorporated in India, entered into a [join ]t ventureagreement dated 28.06.2021, for the purpose of engaging thepetitioner compan1/'s Independent Engineering Services withrespect to ICT's project in Bangladesh. The said project entailedupgrading a Joydev-Debogram-Bhulta-Mandanpur Road [(N- ]1O5,also known as Lhe Dhaka By-Pass Road) in Bangladesh intofour lanes vide a Public-Private Partnership. The petitionercompany has a Permanent Establishment in Hyderabad,from India, and the Indian PE is assessed to tax under theIncome Tax Act, 196 I (for short 'the Act) vide PAN No. . It is stated that the joint venture agreement wasnot entered into with the PE at all. Therefore, it does not createinformation rights and obligations on permanent establishmentin India. 5. It is further contended that joint venture agreement wasexclusively between the petitioner and ICT and PE is therefore,no way involved, which is also evident from the petitionercompany's board resolution, dated 3O.O3.2O21 . It is furtherstated that petitioner company's President and CEO signed anundertaking that PE in India was not involved in the Dhaka By-Pass Road Project. Therefore, there can be no income that isreceived or deemed to be earned in India. As per the jointventure agreement, the development is taking place inBangladesh and not in India, therefore, there is no incomeaccruing/arising or deemed to accrue/arise in India and hence,there is no tax liability arising in India. 5. It is further contended that joint venture agreement wasexclusively between the petitioner and ICT and PE is therefore,no way involved, which is also evident from the petitionercompany's board resolution, dated 3O.O3.2O21 . It is furtherstated that petitioner company's President and CEO signed anundertaking that PE in India was not involved in the Dhaka By-Pass Road Project. Therefore, there can be no income that isreceived or deemed to be earned in India. As per the jointventure agreement, the development is taking place inBangladesh and not in India, therefore, there is no incomeaccruing/arising or deemed to accrue/arise in India and hence,there is no tax liability arising in India. 6. Further, ICT sought to deduct tax at source under theAct, 1961 for the Independent Engineering Services rendered bythe petitioner Company. However, given the fact that no incomeis being earned or attributable to the PE in India, such adeduction of tax at source is not necessary. The petitioner made an application to respondent No. 1 under Section 197 of the Act,for grant of nil rate TDS deduction certification on 26.04.2023along with joint venture agreement, board resolution dated3O.O3.O2O2\ and the undertaking given by the petitionercompany. Respondent No. I sought certain clarifications fromthe petitiorer company on O3.05.2O23 and a prompt reply wasissued by the petitioner on the same day and once againuploaded the copies of the [joint ]venture agreement, the TDS,board resolution and undertaking. However, there was noresponse from respondent No.1, therefore, the petitioner issuedtwo remainders emails, requesting respondent No. I to pass anorder under Section 197 of the Act, 1961. 7. It is fr:rther contended that on 22.06.2023, the petitionercompany received an email from the Income Tax Department,intimating passing of the impugned order rejecting thepetitioner acplication filed under Section 197 of the Act. Thepetitioner contended that said impugned order was passedwithout taking into consideration the submissions made by thepetitioner company. Challenging the said impugned order,present writ petition is hled on various grounds. ..-7 ,/,ti' / // PSK.J & LNA, JW.P-No.B3A2 of 2023 ) 8. It is contended that ICT, tax resident in India, seeks todeduct TDS and it is made with respect to the petitionercompany, which is tax resident of the United States of America.The TDS sought to be deducted is for [work ]that is carried out inBangladesh and thus no income received/accrued/ arising inIndia to the petitioner Company, as per Sections 5 and 9 of theAct. It is also contended that ICT exclusively utilizedconsultancy services of the petitioner Company in Bangladeshfor the purpose of earning income in the very same country andamount paid is for source with respect to the Dhaka By-passRoad project and therefore, it falls under exception carved out inSection 9(i)(vii)(b) of the Act. As per which, any fee for technicalservices paid by a resident for "services utilized in a business orprofession carried on by such person outside India' or "for thepurposes of making or earning any income from any sourceoutside India" shall be excluded from the ambit of "income byway of fees technical services." 9 . Alternatively, it is contended that the fees for theconsultancy services rendered at Bangladesh by petitionerCompany to ICT, is governed by the DTAA between the U.S.A.and India. Under Article 12 of the DTAA, only fees for 'includedservices' are taxable in the source State, and not the fees for technical services which is in question in the presentproceedings. It is also contended that as per Article 7(1) of theDTAA, the business profits of an enterprise of a contractingState shall only be taxable in the State unless the enterprisecarries out the business in the other contracting State througha PE. 9 . Alternatively, it is contended that the fees for theconsultancy services rendered at Bangladesh by petitionerCompany to ICT, is governed by the DTAA between the U.S.A.and India. Under Article 12 of the DTAA, only fees for 'includedservices' are taxable in the source State, and not the fees for technical services which is in question in the presentproceedings. It is also contended that as per Article 7(1) of theDTAA, the business profits of an enterprise of a contractingState shall only be taxable in the State unless the enterprisecarries out the business in the other contracting State througha PE. 10. In the present case, the petitioner Company's Indian PE isnot involved in the Dhaka By-Pass project in any manner andtherefore, no :ncome is attributable to the PE from the fees fromthe consultar.cy services earned by the [petitioner ]company forthe said project and is only taxabie in the USA. 11. It is contended that income from the Bangladesh [project]is not taxable under the Act, and therefore, the same is notliable to tax in India both under the Income Tax Act as well asunder the DTAA. It is further contended that without taking intoconsideration the contentions raised from the [petitioner]company, its application dated 26.04.2023, clarification datedO3.O5.2O23, board resolution dated 3O.O3.2O21 andundertaking lrom the petitioner company, the impugned ordershave been passed erroneously. 'i /i 12. Respondent No.l has filed counter affidavit, intei aliacontending that the petitioner has an effective alternativeremedy by way of filing a revision before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax under Section 264 of th,e Act. Therefore, the presentwrit petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be rejected onthe ground of availability of adequate and efficacious alternativestatutory remedy. 13. It is contended that the impugned order was passed afterduiy examining the material submitted by the petitioner and theassessing officer has rejected the request of the petitioner forissuance of a nil certificate for deduction of TDS by dulyrecording the reasons and also following the principles ofnatural justice. It is also contended that the petitioner isseeking to mischievously set up the lack of involvement of itsIndian PE in its Bangladesh project to circumvent its liabilityand avoid deduction of tax on expenditure being booked andpa5rments being made by an Indian entiqr from India. If theexpenditure is being incurred from India, then thecorresponding income ought also be liable to tax in India. 14. It is also contended that Schedule - 1 of joint ventureagreement makes it clear that the Indian entity ICT is the lead partner in-charge of overall administration of the project andthat the projec t is being managed from India. Thus, thepetitioner is rendering services to the Indian lead P:rrtner andhence, the Assessing Ofhcer has come to the conclusion that thepayments in foreign currency by the Indian entity i.e., ICT to thepetitioner is the fees for technical services received in India ascontemplated under Section 5(2) of the Act, 1961 and that suchamounts would be deemed to be income accruing in India underSection 9(1) of ttre Act. 15. It is further contended that in the event of thepayment/expenditure as well as the income accruing by/ to theBangladesh Project PE, no reason whatsoever has been given asto why the payment is being routed through India. This leads tothe inference th;rt such circumvention is designed to avoid tax/withholding tax in multiple jurisdictions. Further, Section 197of the Act is relevant only when the payee is eligible for anycredit or at the time of [payment ]of amount as contemplatedunder Section 197(ll of the Act. In the instant case, theexpenditure regzrrding the consultancy services rendered by thepetitioner in Bangladesh is attributable to the Project PE inBangladesh and the expenditure is in no way related to ICTIndia. Therefore, the occasion for applying for a certificate under / / i 15. It is further contended that in the event of thepayment/expenditure as well as the income accruing by/ to theBangladesh Project PE, no reason whatsoever has been given asto why the payment is being routed through India. This leads tothe inference th;rt such circumvention is designed to avoid tax/withholding tax in multiple jurisdictions. Further, Section 197of the Act is relevant only when the payee is eligible for anycredit or at the time of [payment ]of amount as contemplatedunder Section 197(ll of the Act. In the instant case, theexpenditure regzrrding the consultancy services rendered by thepetitioner in Bangladesh is attributable to the Project PE inBangladesh and the expenditure is in no way related to ICTIndia. Therefore, the occasion for applying for a certificate under / / i Section 197 of the Act does not arise as the payer would be anassessee under the tax.jurisdiction of Bangladesh 16. It is also contended that the petitioner has failed to comeabreast as to why payments are being routed through India forwork done and income accruing in Bangladesh. It is seeking tomislead that its Indian PE is not engaged in the work inBangladesh. It is further contended that proceedings underSection 197 of the Act are ten tative or provisional or interim incharacter. The tax liability in respect of any payments madewould have to be finally determined in assessment proceedingsunder the Act. As the scope of Section 197 of the Act is limited,a certificate under Section 797 only mitigates any action whichmay be initiated under Section 201 of the Act against the payerfor the failure to deduct tax at source. L7 . It is finally contended that the assessment officer hadrightly passed impugned order by duly taking into considerationall the aspects and that there are no merits in the present writpetition. 18. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for therespondents has relied upon the following judgments: (i)I-arsen & Toubro Limited Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income-td-x. (TDS/ 2(1)1Commissioner of Income-td-x. (TDS/ 2(1)1(ii)Areva T&D, SA Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax2tax2 (iii) Ansaldo Engergia SpA Vs. Income-tax OfJiceF. 19. In the case of Areva T&,D, SA (supra), the Delhi HighCourt has held that authorbation/ certifi.cate issued underSection 195/ 197 of the Act is prouisional in nature and cannot beequated uith regular assessment or other proceedings under theAct. The certificote has been isszed as an inteim measure on therequest of the petitioner and it cannot be compared uith the finaldetermination of tax liabilitg by making an assessment underSection 1a3p) of the AcL Further, at paragraph No.28, it hasbeen held as follows: '28. Explanation 2(a) of the aforesaid section clearly takes careof thE situation where no return has been filed. Ort a conjointread.irtg of sedions 195 and 197 of the Act, we are of the uiewthat iJ ang opinion is expressed at the time of grant of certiJicateil is tentatiue or provisional or interim in nature and the so,meu,ould tlot debar the Assessing Olficer from initiating aproceeding under Section 147 of the Act on the ground thatthere has been a change of opinion. " ' 12010t [lu0 ][Tarm ][n ][373 ][(Bombay)]'(201l) l0 taxnlann.com 319 (Dethi)'(zoo:) [t:l ][i ][Ta{man ][795 ][(Madras)] 20. Further, in Ansaldo Engergia SpA [(supra), ]the [issue]before the Madras High Court was a challenge to thecancellation of certihcate issued the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-tax under Section 197 of the Act and wherein, it isfurther contended that such cancellation is illegal and contraryto the provisions contained in Section i97(1) and (2) rlwSection 44BBB of the Act and is vitiated by non-application ofmind and violative of the principles of natural [justice. ]TheMadras High Court at paragraph-S held as under: ' 12010t [lu0 ][Tarm ][n ][373 ][(Bombay)]'(201l) l0 taxnlann.com 319 (Dethi)'(zoo:) [t:l ][i ][Ta{man ][795 ][(Madras)] 20. Further, in Ansaldo Engergia SpA [(supra), ]the [issue]before the Madras High Court was a challenge to thecancellation of certihcate issued the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-tax under Section 197 of the Act and wherein, it isfurther contended that such cancellation is illegal and contraryto the provisions contained in Section i97(1) and (2) rlwSection 44BBB of the Act and is vitiated by non-application ofmind and violative of the principles of natural [justice. ]TheMadras High Court at paragraph-S held as under: '5. .. euen if the cerlificate for deduction ot source at a louerrate is utithdraun, the consequence of such uithdrawal uouldbe that deduction fas b be made at a higher rate, butultimatelg the question of liability is to be dectded inassessmenl proceedings. The liability of the petitioner is notbeing finally determined at the time of the utthdraual of thecertiftcate. If ultimqtelg it is found that the petitioner is liable topdA tax at a rate louer than the deduction to be made, it isobuious that tte amount patd is to be refunded."rate is utithdraun, the consequence of such uithdrawal uouldbe that deduction fas b be made at a higher rate, butultimatelg the question of liability is to be dectded inassessmenl proceedings. The liability of the petitioner is notbeing finally determined at the time of the utthdraual of thecertiftcate. If ultimqtelg it is found that the petitioner is liable topdA tax at a rate louer than the deduction to be made, it isobuious that tte amount patd is to be refunded." 21. Further, it is relevant to refer clauses of joint venture agreement dated 28.O6.2021, which reads as under "2.7. Once exeanted by alt of the Menbers, this Agreementshall be effectiue as of the date on ut6ch the perfoflnance ofSenzces begins in accordance uith GCC Clause 17.1 and 18.1of the Seruices Agreement. The Members had cotlstitutedthemselues as an Unincorporated Joint Venture and submitteda Proposal to the Client for rendering consultancA servrces asspecifed in the Scope of Serutces hereinafier. Each Member hadused all reasonable sktll and diligence in the preparation and I I t2 submission of the Proposal to the Client. The Prolnsal uassubmitted once the tenns uere unanimouslg agreed bg theMembers artd in line uith the terms of the JV Agreement signedbetueen tfu? Parties on 15th January 2020 and Fee proposalsharing agr,zecl bg the Parties on the same date. 2.7.7. Ilport ouard of the Prokct to the Joint Venture on 6thApril 2021, Lead Member ltas entered into a SenacesAgreement uith tle Client ('kruices Agreement") on 6 Apil2021, utherebg the Members haue agreed to perfonn atl theSeruices to be undertaken for the Project bg the Joint Ventureunder lhe St?rutces Agreement. 2.7,2. The Joint Venture parties shall be jointly and seuerallyliable to tfut Client to the extent of seruices prouided bg eachpartg for pelforming tle seruices and the obligations of ttrc JointVenture as set forTh in the Contract, in accord.ance uith thetems and conditions thereof. The Joint Venture partg's share ofthe Contract amount and liabilities shall be proportionate totheir inputs in carrying out their seruices for the Project. 74.7. AU pagments to the Members pursuant to the SeruicesAgreement or ottenuise shall be made in accordance withSchedule 3 and the financtal policg of th.e Joint Venture(including pagrnent of interest on ang amounts ushich a Me-mbermay become liable to pag the other Member pursuarlt to thisAgreement) is rrs set oul in that Schedule. 2.7,2. The Joint Venture parties shall be jointly and seuerallyliable to tfut Client to the extent of seruices prouided bg eachpartg for pelforming tle seruices and the obligations of ttrc JointVenture as set forTh in the Contract, in accord.ance uith thetems and conditions thereof. The Joint Venture partg's share ofthe Contract amount and liabilities shall be proportionate totheir inputs in carrying out their seruices for the Project. 74.7. AU pagments to the Members pursuant to the SeruicesAgreement or ottenuise shall be made in accordance withSchedule 3 and the financtal policg of th.e Joint Venture(including pagrnent of interest on ang amounts ushich a Me-mbermay become liable to pag the other Member pursuarlt to thisAgreement) is rrs set oul in that Schedule. 74.4. As baueen the Members, each Member shall haue fulland sole responsibilitA for the payment oJ anA taxes, duties,/ees [or ][assr:ssments ][of ][a ][similar ][nafire ][uhatsoeuer leuied in]connection Dith its seruices under this Agreement, tncludingsubcontract:; end including but not limited to, ang personalincome taxe'd, leuied or imposed. on ang of its emplogees orpersorutel or ang of its submntractor's emploAees or personnel.The respon::ibilitlJ on paVments bg a Member to non-residents lies with the said Member, espectallg with regard to anAspecific local tax. 77.7. This agreement has been entered [qnd ]shall in allrespects be constnted and interpreted in accord.ance with lausof 'lndia'. Schedule 7, clduse 7,2:- The Project is: Independent Engineeing (lE) Seruices forUpgrading of Jogdeupur - Debogram - Btulta Madanpur(Dhaka Bg-Pass) Road. (N-105) into 4 lanes through PublicPriu ate Partner s hip, B ang ladesh- Schedule 2, Scope of Seruices (Clause 5.2) :- The bief responsibilities of ICT and Sheladia haue beenmentioned belou.t: (i) Sheladia shalt provide tlE. keg Senior Structural Dngineerqnd undertake th.e scope of seruices under this positton asoutlined in the Job Desciption in the Seruices Agreement, uithdue attention to d-eadlines and aordination uith the team.(ii) ICT shall lead the project uith support of Sheladia and shalldischarge its duties in a fair, impartial and efftcient manner,consistent uith tfe highest standards of professional tntegitgand Good Industry Practice. (iiil I:he Client will provid.e tn-country jacitities, includingfumished [and ][equipped ][office ][space, ][transport ][and ][logistic]supporT. (iu) ICT and Sheladia sLnll carry out their utork as laid down inthe Seruice Agreement."the Seruice Agreement." 22. As per Schedule 3 Annexure A of joint venture agreement, ICT agrees to pay to Sheladia for the services of Md.Nazrul Islamfor the position of Senior Structural Engineer. The petitioneralso agreed to pay a mark-up fee of USD 3,000 (US Dollars l Three Thousand Only) per month per position for service of'Senior Geotecheical Engineer', 'Financial Expert' and 'O & M'Specialists on this project. 23. Perusal oi pieadings and material on record show thatsubject project is being undertaken in Bangladesh and no partof the said proje:ct is situated in India. The amounts payable toICT in respect of above project are being paid in Bangladesh bythe Government of Bangladesh. The services for the said projectare being rendered by the petitioner herein to ICT ancl the sameis governed by DTAA. As per Article 12 of the DTAA, only fees for'included servicr:s' are taxable in the source State and not thefees for the ter:hnical services, which is in question in thepresent proceedings. Further, as per Article 7(1) of the DTAA,the business prr:fits of an enterprise of a contracting State shallonly be taxable in the State unless the enterprise carries out thebusiness in other contracting State through a PE. In the presentcase, no material is placed on record to show that PE of thepetitioner company, having office at Hyderabad, is involved inany manner in the above project. 24. In the above lactual background, and in the absence ofany material plrtced before this Court, it can be inferred that no 24. In the above lactual background, and in the absence ofany material plrtced before this Court, it can be inferred that no taxable event has taken place in India and thus, [petitioner]company cannot be subjected to TDS for [payments ]made by ICTto the petitioner company. Though, petitioner has got analternative remedy of revision before the appellate authorityunder Section 264 of the Income Tax Act against the impugnedorder, this Bench is not inclined to reiegate the petitioner toappellate authority in the absence of any strong materialwarranting to hold the petitioner liable to pay TDS. 25. In the light of above facts, discussion, the Writ Petition isallowed and the respondents are directed to consider grantingnil rate TDS deduction certificate to the petitioner under Section197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be noorder as to costs. 26. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. SD/.A.V.S. ASSrsrANr sPt*o*SECTION //TRUE To, 124.(H*"tTsf,*nt},.;,fr$il;::::"":" [:]b.iwo CD [CoPies]MBCBS.\->z- I HIGH COURT DATED: 2510112024 0 2 tlB [2024]I[ro]*r-re0[*]ORDER WP.No.18382 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ?s li