TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding Counsel, an opportunity was granted to the Respondents to file a counter-affidavit in the matter which would furnish reasons as regards the conclusion arrived at in the Impugned Order. However, this Court specifically observed therein that the Impugned Order must stand on its own legs, and accordingly, the reasons furnished by way of a counter-affidavit could not be supplanted into the Impugned Order. This Court is of the considered opinion that the principle enunciated in Mohinder Singh Gill [ 1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] is applicable to the case herein. wherein the Supreme Court rejected the notation of supplementing reasons in relation to an executive order by way of an affidavit. Therefore this Court must consider whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporated under the Companies Act, 2013 engaged in the business of retail trade of goods through e-commerce platforms seeks to challenge a certificate dated 29.05.2023 issued by Respondent No. 1 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Circle 77(1) rendered under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act ) (the Impugned Order ) read with a letter dated 29.05.2023 addressed to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 1 (the Impugned Letter ) (hereinafter, the Impugned Order and the Impugned Letter shall, collectively be referred to as the Impugned Actions ). 2. The facts of this case reveal that the Petitioner filed application an application dated 01.03.2023 under Section 197 of the IT Act along with Form-13 of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers projected tax liability extended to a mere sum of INR 1,04,00,000 (Indian Rupees One Crore Four Lakh) as against a projected revenue from operations of INR 8810,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ten Crore); c) In FY 19-20, 20-21 and 21-22 the tax to turnover ratio of the Petitioner was 0.01% (zero point zero one per cent); and d) That the Petitioner has projected a tax refund to the extent of INR 45,05,00,000 (Indian Rupees Forty Five Crore Five Lakh) under a 0.5% (zero point five per cent) rate of deduction of TDS. 5. Thereafter, on 19.04.2023 certain additional queries were raised by Respondent No. 1 in relation to discrepancies between the projected gross turnover of the Petitioner for FY 22- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has vehemently contended before this Court that the issuance of an LDC is not a matter of right and that the issuance of an LDC is an exception to the rigors of Section 192-195 of the IT Act. Accordingly, he submits that the onus to justify the grant of relief under Section 197 of the IT Act falls squarely upon the Petitioner, which according to him has not been appropriately discharged. 10. Accordingly, it has been contended that (i) the projected accounts of the Petitioner for FY 22-23 were found to be unreliable; (ii) the Petitioner has a history of TDS default; and (iii) the rate of TDS requested by the Petitioner i.e., 0.01% (zero point zero one per cent) is wholly unreasonable. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
