Disposed

Hill County Properties Limited v. Union of India

Telangana HC16 Oct 2023WP/28086/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ petition challenging TDS demand under Section 194-A by directing Income Tax authorities to make a final decision on a pending representation regarding TDS benefits post-amalgamation, without taking coercive steps meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to decide on pending representation within 60 days and not to take coercive steps.

Hill County Properties Limited Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LA)(MI NARAYANA ALISHETW

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28086 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Hill County Properties Limited, A company incorporated under the Companies Act 4! !-l-avirlg^{lts Reglstered Officeat Hill county, Bachupally,At the end oi Nizampet} Rd,. After Ke-sineni Bus Depot, Hyderabad - 500090 - Telangana, Represented by its Authorized Signatory.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi.

¶13

The Office of Commissioner, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi.

¶14

Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, CIT-3, l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004.

¶15

Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, TDS Cirlcle -1 (1) l.T. Towers, A.C Guards, Hyderabad-500004.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying thal in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents 2 to 4 in making TDS demand for the financial year 2016-17 for the payments made by the Petitioner (on behalf of Maytas Mansion Private Limited Hyderabad ) without considering the lower deduction certificate bearing certificate no. 0216FM104D valid from 2911012016 to 3110312017 held in favour of Maytas Mansion Private Limited Hyderabad - TAN-HYDMoB578D under section 154 of lncome Tax Act,

¶18

I i I I

¶19

1961 as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable in gross violation of the principles of natural^justice and in violation of this Honourable Court's Order dated 1811112016 in Company Petition No. 208 of 2016 and Company Petition No. 223 of 2016 approving the Scheme of Amalgamation of Maytas Mansion Private Limited Hyderabad with the Petitioner and being violative of Petitioner's fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the TDS demand of Rs. 2,1 5,50,4101- for the financial year 2016-12 and to direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to consider and dispose off Petitioner's representation dated 1 1lO3l2O23 and being violative of Petitioner's fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the TDS demand for the financial year 2016-17 for the payments made by the Petitioner (on behalf of Maytas Mansion private Limited Hyderabad) without considering the lower deduction certificate hearing certificate no. 0216FM104D valid f rom 29.1O.2016 to 31.03.2017 held in favour of Maytas Mansion Private Limited Hyderabad TAN-HYDM08578D, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI l.MYTRl

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2 : ANJALI AGARWAL

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3&4 : SRI A.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

.*i

¶27

.tHT] HON'BLF], SRI.IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICI.] I,AXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT'PETITION No.28086 of 2023

¶30

ORDER:/lrcl llon'ble Sri Jus.ticc P.SAM KOSHY)

¶31

Heard Ms.Mytri lndukuru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Anajli Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. I and Mr.A.Rama Krishna Rcddv. lcanrcd counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Pcrused the material on rccord.

¶32

l he uricvance ol- thc pctitioner in the present writ petition ts against the inaction on thc pafl ol the respondents in not permitting the petitioncrs lirr a"'ailing the bcncflt of the deduction of tax at source, at a lowe| i'arc ti t' |^0,,i, ulrclcr ScctioD I 94-A from the interest made to Mls.ll. & FS lownships IJrban ;\sscts t,imited on behalf of M/s.Mytas trlirion Pvt. I.td. Mrs.M;-tas N4ansion Pvt. Ltd., since got merged to the petitioner's cornpany l. e., Ilill County Properties Limited (HCPL) by viftue ol' the ordc'r datcd 18. I l .l0l6 decided by this very l{igh Court in C.P.Nos.208 and 22i ol'20 16, approving the scheme of amalgamation As ir conscclucnce ot tht-' ap;-loval of the scheme of amalgamation ot' M/s-M-rtas lVlansion Pvt. [.td.. into the petitioner's^{establishment,} all

¶33

¶34

taxes, duties and cess payable by the transferor company sha be treated as the tiabil ity/retums/claims as the case may be of the transferee company i.e., the petitioner's cornpany M/s. Hilt County properties Limited.

¶35

3' From the pleadings, what is reflected is that there has been a notice of demand raised by the Departme nt right liorn 20 tg onwards and right from the said date itsell, thc pctitioners have becn repeatedly corresponding with the respondcnrs. inrimating them about the amalgamation and the orders passed bi, this very High Court in various company petitions in this regard a.d staring that in the Iight of the order of approval by the lJigh court, ail turrher liabilities and benefirs now have to be availed by the petitioner's conlpan\ i.e., transleree company. However, there has been no turlhcr proglcss rnade by the respondents even after repeated correspondencc bcing rnade by the petitioners on the part of the respondents.

¶36

4' Today. when the matter is takcn up tb. riearing, the reamed counsel for the Department submits thar trrerc are series of representations pending witli the respondcnt author.itics. orrc such represcnration is that

¶37

¶38

1 J I i

¶39

which is reflected on annexurc P-6 i.e., representation dated I1.03.2023, let the writ petition itsell be disposed of and for the respondents to take an appropriale decision on thc said representation, so far as the benefrts under Section 194-A to be availed by the petitioner's company is concemed.

¶40

Given the said submissions being made by the leamed counsel for the Department, we are ol thc considered opinion that the Writ Petition itself can be now disposcd ol, dirccting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to take appropriatc decision on thc lcprcsentation dated 11.03.2023 filed by are the petitioners. While taking the said decision, the respondents directed also to keep a rrote of' thc dccision of this very High Court in C.P.Nos.lOS rrnd ll.] ol'l0l(r rrncl thc consequential benefits that the petitioner cornpany uould bc cntitled in the light of an approval of

¶41

merger. l-ct thc decision bc takcn within a period of sixty (60) days Meanwhilc. rcspondcnt authoritics are further directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioncrs till the decision is taken.

¶42

Accordingly thc Writ Pc-tition is disposed of. There shall be no

¶43

order as to cosls

¶44

¶45

7 As a sequel,^{miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shallstand}

¶46

closed.

¶47

ASS'STAi?h[.541'IIA //TRUE COPY/' .ecrffiorrrcen

¶48

'"'1+l:ts#ly.?'5.111i3;,x],?ii"]3;3"f;'xffi :-H"1i"t"l''Jfu^;r"'"9"'

¶49

"'^{*i'+r"ru:i85,fl'3,si#"'."i?'in.o"rax, crr-3' r'r' rowers' A'c' Guards'}

¶50

, +1!"J3t"1f;u33fl%1..."".^{of lncome rax, rDS cirtcte-1 (1) t.r. rowers,A.c.}

¶51

i $$;^{f,il1"trffi^^'fl+H8ffr ffJ#*.'"yr .,,"}

BSK

GJP

.Pnq,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611012023

ORDER

WP.No.28086 of 2023

STATE. o
{
q o
:)
a) sx N[\ N8
.) *A.
.i( i\f S1-. j i.r'"i

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

PN\q,
golro* ^

Hill County Properties Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hill County Properties Limited v. Union of India

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

Abdul Aziz Qureshi Hyderabad Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

The Managing Director Vs Mr. Purimigalla Veeranagaiah

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (Nekrtc) Vs Kodali Rani , Leela Rani

Gvk Transportation Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/s.Balaji Suppliers Vs Union of India and 2 others

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs M/s.Zenotech Laboratories Limited