Disposed

Saudi Telecom Company v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021WP/3815/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged Income Tax demand notices. The High Court directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand and ordered the respondents to rectify PAN defects within two weeks to enable the filing of an appeal, during which recovery was kept in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Director petitioner to pay 20% demand; enforce rectified PAN allotment; keep demand notices in abeyance while appeal prepared.

Saudi Telecom Company Vs Deputy Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.3815 OF 2021 (T-IT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Saudi Telecom Company A company incorporated under The laws of Saudi Arabia P.O.Box – 89712, Riyadh – 11652, Saudi Arabia Represented herein by its Authorized Representative Mr.Waleed Abdulrahman M.Almasfer

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. K.P.Kumar, Senior Advocate for Sri.Surya Narayana.T, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Cir 2(2) 6^th Block, 80 Feet Road, 4^th Floor, BMTC Building, Koramangala Bengaluru – 560 095.

¶12

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6^th Block, , 80 Feet Road, 4^th Floor, BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095.

¶13

¶14

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly known as vodafone South Limited) Maruthi Infotech Centre No.11/1, 12/1, Koramangala Amar Jyothi Layout Bengaluru – 560 071.

¶15

….Respondents

¶16

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate)

¶17

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the request of the petitioner to stay the recovery of the demand raised for the assessment years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 AnnexureG and etc.

¶18

This writ petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has called in question the Demand notice for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 20112012 as per Annexure-G, the notice dated 17.01.2020 at Annexure-H and has sought for consequential orders restraining the respondents from taking any action consequent to the demand at Annexures-A to F, till petitioner’s appeals are taken on record by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

¶21

¶22

It is submitted by learned Senior counsel

¶23

appearing on behalf of the petitioner that appeals were not filed as the Permanent Account Number (PAN) allotted to the petitioner was not in order and there were certain defects including as regards mentioning of incorrect details as regards date of incorporation, office address, correct telephone number and E-mail address, etc. It is submitted that once such defects are rectified and fresh PAN is allotted to the petitioner, petitioner would be in a position to file appeals and seek for stay of the impugned orders.

¶24

Taking note of the said submission and also noticing the submission of counsel for the Revenue that the defects in the PAN would be rectified at the earliest from their side, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the following:

¶25

a) The petitioner to pay 20% of the demand within

¶26

a period of 10 days from the date of release of this order;

¶27

¶28

b) Respondents No.1 and 2 to ensure that rectified

¶29

PAN be allotted to the petitioner after incorporating details and correcting the incorrect details. Such process to be completed within a period not later than two weeks from the date of release of this order;

¶30

c) For such action to be completed by the respondents as stated above, the petitioner to furnish necessary details and other requirements as they may be called upon to do so;

¶31

d) Once the rectified PAN is allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶32

In light of disposal of the petition in terms of the above, the demand notice at Annexures-A to F would be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that on appeal being filed, petitioner's application for stay is left open to be considered by respondent No.1. The interim protection extended herein would be in force till

¶33

¶34

consideration of the application for stay before

¶35

respondent No.1.

¶36

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Saudi Telecom Company v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saudi Telecom Company v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Trinco Property Vs Mr. N.R. Sumanth Kumar

Rahim Khan Vs H Mushtari Jan

Ruptub Solutions Private Limited Vs Radhe Shyam Gautam HUF

Ramesh Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Thotada Narasegowda Vs the State of Karnataka by Its