M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Trading Company Ltd. Anors V. Commissioner Of Incom Tax and Ors

WPT/39/2013

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Chhattisgarh State Power Trading Company Limited and M/s. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited as petitioners, who challenged the reduction of the response period from 30 days to 5 days in a notice issued under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and other officials. The petitioners argued that the reduction did not allow sufficient time to avail the statutory appellate forum provided under the Act. The court issued an interim order to maintain the status quo and ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners, restoring the 30-day period for response.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 732706 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANAND DADARIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELABH DUBEY
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Mandamus; Notice Reduction; Writ petition
• Section: 156; 220(1)

Judgement Text

"c ^ TJ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition m No. 3-9 of 2013 PETITIONERS: ^--^•^^: —•^•^\"fSs^15-*\"\" twSWt-;\"-i^^.-» RNO- p<®sen1BU'\"....^ Oa»sd\"--\"\"\"7 M/s. Chhattisgarh State Po-vyer Trading Company) Limited (hereinafter referred to as CSPTCL duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya, P.S. & P.0 Danganiya at Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Through, its authorized signatory and DGM (Finance) G.K. Rathi, S/o Shri Shankar Lal Rathi aged about 41 years R/o, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Ground Floor Danganiya, Raipur. 2^G.K. Rathi, S/o Shri Shankar Lal Rathi aged about 4l years R/o, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Ground Floor Danganiya, P.S. & P.0. Danganiya, Raipur, DGM (Finance) and authorized signatory of the petitioner No. 1. Versus RESPONDENTS :!• 3. Conimissioner of Income Tax, (TDS) Reena Apartments, Pachpedhi Naka Raipur- 492001. Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, (TDS) Reena Apartments, Pachpedhi Naka Raipur- 492001. Deputy Coinfflissioner Income Tax ~'i , t * (T.D.S.), Raipur(C.G.) I Before: -Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his conapanion Judges of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitutionof India for issuance of suitable directions. orders or writs including writs in the nature of niandamus certiorari'etc. 3. HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION m No. 37 of2013 PETITIONER : M/s. Chhattisga-Fh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Another. VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) & Others. RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (T) No. 39 of 2013 M/s. Chhattisgarh State Power Trading Company Limited & Another. VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax fTDS) & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Acinihotri, J. Present: Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners. ' Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the respondents. ORD E R (O P.E N C O U R T) (Passed on 11th day ofApril, 2013) 1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in these petitions i.e. W.P. (T) No. 37 and 39 of 2013, and as such, the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Grievance of the petitioners was to the reduction of 30 days as prescribed under section 220(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 5 days in the impugned notice dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P/1) under section 156, ibid. 3. This Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, passed an interim order on 02.04.2013 and 03.04.2013, respectively, not to take any coercive steps for a period of 30 days from the date of the notjce i.e. 18.03.2013. Now, reduction of 30 days to 5 days has been resolved and the petitioner has got 30 days time to act upon the notice of demand under sectjon 156 of the of Act, 1961. ~s i» Amit 4. Clause 6 of the said notice clearly states that if the petitioner intends to appeal against the assessment/fine/penalty, it may present an appeal under Part A of Chapter XX of the Act, 1961 to the Con»missionerof Income Tax (Appeals) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice in Form No. 35, duly stamped and verified as laid down in that form. 5. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already taken recourse to statutory appellate forum. 6. In view of that, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. Since the protection for 30 days from 18.03.2013 was granted from the date of its issue, the same shall continue for a period of 30 days from 18.03.2013. 7. If the period of demand notice is reduced from 30 days tp 5 days, the assessee would not be in a position to avail the remedy provided under clause 6 of the said notice. The authorities, while issuing notice under section 156 ibid, have not considered the remedy available to the petitioner under the clause (6) ofthe said notice while reducing the period of 30 days to5 days. On that account also, the assessee was entitled to 30 days in Ijeu of 5 days. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both these petitions stand disposed of. 9. No order asto costs. ^SatishK..A^ Judge ~s Uj- "