Wp/20781/2002 Of M/S Raasi Cement Ltd.secbad v. The Commssr.of Income Tax.hyd.andanother

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 20781 of 2002 Between: M/s.Raasi Cement Limited, A Public Limited Company incorporated under theprovisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at V Floor, MinervaHouse, Secunderabad, rep.by its Authorised Representative Mr.M.S.TrivikramaRao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle I, Basheer Bagh,Hyderabad.Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue appropriate writ/order/direction particularly one in the nature of Writ ofCertiorari quashing the orders dated 04-04-2002 by the second respondent levyinginterest under Section 220(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order dated 30-08-2002 by the first respondent rejecting the waiver petition made under Section220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently issue a writ of Mandamusdirecting both te respondents to waive the interest levied under Section 220(2) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1996-97. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.P.MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.R.ASHOK (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.H.S.Ansari,) The petitioner-assessee has questioned the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Central), Hyderabad, passed under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (forshort ‘the Act’) rejecting the waiver petition filed by the petitioner. Interest is payable by the assessee, if the tax, as demanded, is not paid within thespecified period. Waiver of interest for the assessment year 1996-97 amounting toRs.4,25,69,676/- charged under Section 220(2) of the Act for the period fromDecember 1998 to March 2002 was paid by the assessee under the said Sub-section. Under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 220 of the Act, power has been conferred uponthe Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive the amount of interestpaid or payable by an assessee under Sub- Section (2) of the Act, if theCommissioner is satisfied that: i. payment of such amount [has caused or] would cause genuine hardshipto the assessee;to the assessee; ii. default in the payment of the amount on which interest [has been paidor] was payable under the said sub-section was due tocircumstances beyond the control of the assessee; andor] was payable under the said sub-section was due tocircumstances beyond the control of the assessee; and iii. the assessee has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessmentor any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him. A bare perusal of the above provisions contained under Sub-section (2-A) of Section200 of the Act would show that the discretion conferred upon the Commissioner towaive or reduce interest is circumscribed by the three conditions extracted supra. In exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal. It is to see whether the authorityconferred with the power has exercised the same in accordance with law, or that thedecision is founded on irrelevant considerations eschewing from considerationrelevant material on record or the same is perverse or in violation of principles ofnatural justice. the assessee has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessmentor any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him. A bare perusal of the above provisions contained under Sub-section (2-A) of Section200 of the Act would show that the discretion conferred upon the Commissioner towaive or reduce interest is circumscribed by the three conditions extracted supra. In exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal. It is to see whether the authorityconferred with the power has exercised the same in accordance with law, or that thedecision is founded on irrelevant considerations eschewing from considerationrelevant material on record or the same is perverse or in violation of principles ofnatural justice. It is the contention of Mr.Janardhan Raju, learned counsel for the assessee that theorder impugned suffers from non- application of mind and that the contentions raisedby the petitioner and the submissions made in his application for waiver of interesthave not been considered by the learned Commissioner, and therefore, there is afailure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner. In other words, it iscontended that although the petitioner satisfied the conditions (i) to (iii), by theimpugned order, the Commissioner has rejected the application on irrelevantconsiderations. Mr.S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, on the otherhand, submitted that the order impugned is a reasoned one and does not suffer fromany legal infirmity. The petitioner, having failed to satisfy the conditions prescribedunder Sub-section (2-A) of Section 220 of the Act, is not entitled to the relief asprayed for. The impugned order has been read before us by the learned counsel for therespective parties. We find that it is a reasoned order and does not suffer from anylegal infirmity. From the material on record and more particularly, the avermentsmade by the petitioners in the two representations made before the Commissioner,we are not satisfied that the petitioner has fulfilled the conditions (i) and (ii) towarrant the exercise of discretion conferred under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 220of the Act to waive the amount of interest payable. We find that sufficient reasonshave given in support of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Commissioner inhis order under appeal We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the writpetition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. M.H.S.ANSARI,J Dt:16-12-2004 ________________________ T.CH.SURYA RAO,J kdl To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle I, Basheer Bagh,Hyderabad.Hyderabad. 3 Two C.D. Copies.