Wp(C)/10077/2018 Of M/S. Network Systems v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 10077 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) -------------- M/S. NETWORK SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD., STONE HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101, SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH SFO TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., STONE HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY, K.PADMANABHAN. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.ASISH MOHAN SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695001. TDS RANGE, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI-682002. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TS APPENDIX RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10077 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a company which took over thecompany, M/s.Network Systems and Technologies Limited.Proceedings have been initiated against M/s.NetworkSystems and Technologies Limited, on the basis that theincome tax deducted at source by M/s.Network Systemsand Technologies Limited have not been remitted by them.Since the said company was taken over, Ext.P1 seriesnotices issued in this connection have been served on thepetitioner company. The case of the petitioner is that theamounts mentioned in Ext.P1 series demands are amountsremitted by the erstwhile company, viz, M/s.NetworkSystems and Technologies Limited, though the said payments have been omitted to be mentioned in therespective 26A Forms. The petitioner, therefore, preferredExt.P6 representation seeking rectification of the mistakes inthe concerned 26A forms. The grievance of the petitioner inthe writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of thecompetent authority in dealing with Ext.P6 representation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the firstrespondent to consider Ext.P6 representation in accordancewith law, within two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. Till then, it is directed thatproceedings in furtherance to Ext.P1 series notices shall notbe taken. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE