TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner to furnish the certain information and nothing else. It is not even a show cause notice which may be taken for the purposes of passing an order as contemplated under Section 201 (3) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no necessity or any justification for us to disturb or quash the above notice and it would be in the fitness of thing if the petitioner appears in response of the said notice and submits the desired information to keep its record straight and not necessarily to enable the respondents to pass any order under Section 201 (3) of the Act. - Writ Tax No. 150 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d TDS and since no order till date have been passed, the petition is premature and that the petitioner can furnish reply to the said notice whereupon appropriate action would be taken. The Court is conscious of the fact that any challenge to the show cause notice is not to be entertained liberally unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction or that the authority issuing the same is not competent to issue it. Section 201 (3) of the Act as it stands today reads as under :- 201 (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry of seven years from the end of the financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment is made or the credit is given, in any other case. In the present case, we are concerned with the earlier part of the unamended Section 201(3) of the Act, which lays down the limitation of two years. It would run from 31.3.2010 i.e. the end of the financial year in which the statement of return was filed. Accordingly, it would not be competent upon the authority to pass any order in connection thereto after 31.3.2012. Admittedly, the aforesaid period had expired much before the issuance of the impugned notice. Thus, valuable rights have accrued in favour of the assessee as during this period no order was passed. It is in these circumstances that a controversy has arisen as to whether the limitation of seven years as provided b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer had ceased to exist before the amendment. In line with the above decisions, there is another decision in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC), which lays down that the provisions of the Finance Act cannot be given retrospective effect and retrospectivity would only be limited as per the Act itself and that the amendment would not apply to assessments which have already become final that is before 1.4.1989 from which date the amended provision was made applicable. The Supreme Court as a general principle thus laid down that the taxing provision imposing a liability is governed by normal rule of presumption that it is not retrospective and the settled principle of law is that the law to be applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Having said so, we take up the impugned notice dated 5.1.2016. It may be a notice under Section 201 (3) of the Act but it only requires the petitioner to furnish the certain information and nothing else. It is not even a show cause notice which may be taken for the purposes of passing an order as contemplated under Section 201 (3) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no necessity or any justification for us to disturb or quash the above notice and it would be in the fitness of thing if the petitioner appears in response of the said notice and submits the desired information to keep its record straight and not necessarily to enable the respondents to pass any order under Section 201 (3) of the Act. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
