Mayaputra Services Pvt.Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

i) that the notice dated 12.3.2008 issued by the respondent no.3 (as contained in Annexure 7) be quashed.

ii) for a declaration that the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after called the Act) are not applicable to a contract of

settlement of Balu Ghats.

iii) for a declaration that the provisions of Section 206C of the Act apply only at the point of debiting of the amounts payable by the assessee or lessee

to the account of the licensee or lessor at the time of receipt of such amount from the said buyer and not at any point of time subsequent thereto.

iv) for granting any other relief (s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.â€​

Assailing the impugned order dated 12.3.2008 passed by Assistant Mining Officer, Patna (Annexure-7), Sri D.V.Pathy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, while inviting our attention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage(P) Ltd. Vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax, 2007(8) SCC 463; decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 16015 of 2015 titled as Nai

Rajdhani Path Parmandal, Road Construction Department Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. and order dated 25.5.2007 passed by the Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, in ITA No. 213/Pat/2007 contends that the Mining Officer had no authority or jurisdiction to raise the demand

of TCS with respect to the transactions pertaining to the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08.

It is next contended that at this point in time, more so in view of the department’s own circular as noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as also

findings returned by the Tribunal, amount pertaining to TCS cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Also the mechanism provided under Section

206(c) of the Income Tax Act would be unavailable to recover of the amount.

Well, we are of the considered view that all these contentions can be raised by the petitioner, in fact already stands raised vide representation dated

14.3.2008 (Annexure-8), which is still pending consideration before the authority.

As such we see no reason to interfere with the impugned notice dated 12.3.2008 (Annexure-7), more so from the return filed by the petitioner it does

not appear as to whether, and if any, amount of component of TCS was deposited by the petitioner.

Also Mrs. Archana Sinha contends that only for the year in question the issue is pending, as for the subsequent period petitioner has already deposited

the amount.

Well, the issues raised before us are left open to be considered by the appropriate authority which in the instant case is the Mining Officer who issued

notice dated 12.3.2008.

We are not in agreement with the submission made by Sri Pathy that the Mining Officer has already prejudged the issue inasmuch as he has asked the

petitioner to pay the amount by way of a Demand Draft. We are of the view that the impugned notice cannot be read in such a manner. The Officer

has to adjudicate the amount only after hearing the parties and affording adequate opportunity of filing reply and substantial compliance of principles of

natural justice. The officer has only asked the petitioner to deposit the amount, through a Bank Draft, which is due and payable in accordance with

law. In any event we clarify that the amount mentioned in the notice be not construed to be determination of the sum due and payable by the

petitioner.

As such, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Mining Officer on 5th October, 2020, on which date the petitioner shall file additional material in

support of his earlier representation dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure-8). Thereafter after hearing the parties, the Mining Officer shall pass an appropriate

order in accordance with law. Parties undertake to fully co-operate.

Since the matter pertains to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, we direct that all the proceedings must be concluded positively within a period of two

months thereafter and if required through virtual mode.

Petition stands disposed of.

Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.