Disposed

M/S. Popular Printers v. the Income Tax Officer(Tds)

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017WP(C)/1236/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court upheld interim orders demanding 15% payment of disputed tax. The petitioner was directed to produce Form Nos.15G/15H and pay 15% of the demand within three months to obtain a stay on recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Payment of 15% of disputed demand within three months to secure stay pending first appeal; recovery proceedings to continue if not complied with.

M/S. Popular Printers Vs the Income Tax Officer(Tds) — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1236 of 2017 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S. POPULAR PRINTERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PRABHA THOMAS.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) ARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA 688 011.

¶11

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶12

3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 003.

¶13

BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC,

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 1239/2017, WPC. 1244/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 1236 of 2017 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1:	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED	BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
	YEAR 2013-14 DATED 17	.5.2016

¶20

P1A:	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 23.5.2016
P1B:	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 31.5.2016
P1C:	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 12.8.2016
P2:	COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016
P2A:	COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016
P2B:	COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016
P2C:	COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2016
P3:	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2016
P4:	COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1914 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED 2.2.1993

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY//

¶22

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶23

¶24

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶25

=====================

¶26

W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and

¶27

1244 of 2017 - E

¶28

========================= Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2017

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the orders passed in the interlocutory applications filed in an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The assessment years in all the cases are of the years from 2013-14 to 2016-17. The allegations against all the three petitioners were of the Tax Deduction at Source (TDS), having not been made for payment of interest in the deposits accepted by the petitioners, nor Form Nos.15G/15H having been produced. The Assessing Officer had demanded the tax deductible at source as also the interest due under Sections 201(1) and 201(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contentions raised are that now the petitioners have produced Form Nos.15G/15H for all the aforesaid years.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and 1244 of 2017 - E

¶33

The learned Counsel appearing for the revenue would rely on the Office Memorandum [F.No.404/72/93-ITCC], dated 29.02.2016, wherein, as of now, a standardisation of grant of stay has been brought in by the Department by permitting a stay of demand, till disposal of first appeal, on payment of 15% of the disputed demand. The learned Counsel for the respondent however relies on clause(b) of paragraph 4, wherein, a blanket stay of the demand itself is mandated, when there is a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the jurisdictional High Court, in favour of the assesse.

¶34

The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jagran Prakashan ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) [(2012) 345 ITR 288 (All)] is relied on by the petitioners. The Appellate Authority has noticed the said judgment in its order. However, more pertinent would be the

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and 1244 of 2017 - E

¶37

words employed in the Circular, which refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the jurisdictional High Court. In such circumstance, based on the Allahabad High Court judgment, no stay can be demanded as a matter of right by the assessee.

¶38

In W.P.(C) No.1239 of 2017, it is seen that about

¶39

Rs.9.50 crores/- were assessed as the tax deductible for each of the years. The total demand is of Rs.32 crores and the assessee claimed to have filed Form Nos.15G/15H coming to almost Rs.32crores. However, the assessee did not produce the documents before the Assessing Officer who has to verify it. As of now, the assessee is in default and the orders cannot be interfered with. In such circumstance, the assessee would be required to make payment of atleast 15% of the disputed demand, within a period of three months from the date of

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C)Nos.1236 - D, 1239-D and 1244 of 2017 - E

¶42

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the recovery proceedings shall continue. The facts and figures in all the writ petitions are almost similar and the same order shall regulate payment in all of them.

¶43

The writ petitions are disposed of with the above

¶44

directions.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

SB/16/01/2017

¶48

// true copy //

¶49

P.A to Judge

M/S. Popular Printers v. the Income Tax Officer(Tds)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Popular Printers v. the Income Tax Officer(Tds)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brahmachari Prakash Vs Reghunath.a.T

Hdfc Bank Limited Vs Linson P.S.

Razia Rahim Vs the Regional Manager

Jameskutty Vs the Authorized Officer Federal Bank Ltd.

Mrs. Geena George Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

Sajini M.J. Vs Can Fin Homes (P) Ltd.