Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 911 - DELHI HIGH COURTProceedings under Sections 201(1) and 201(1a) - whether proceedings could have been initiated without the concerned officer determining the jurisdictional issue as to whether the remittances made were chargeable to tax? - As submitted only a show-cause notice has been issued and therefore, this Court ought not to interfere at this stage in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- According to us, if the statutory authority exercises its powers without determining whether or not it has jurisdiction in the matter, that itself, may, in certain cases, call for interference. As pointed out by Mr. Vohra (something which has not been refuted by Mr. Aggarwal), 85 to 90% of the remittances have been made to the BT Plc, a non-resident company, which approached the Authority for Advance Rulings [in short “AAR”] as far back in 2015. Record shows that the application of AAR was admitted as far back on 07.08.2015. Therefore, a large part of problem, to say, has its genesis in the AAR not acting with due alacrity. Captioned writ petitions can be disposed of with the following directions: (i) The concerned authority will adjudicate the impugned show cause notices qua which we are told that the petitioners have filed their replies. (ii) While carrying out the adjudication, the concerned authority will in the first instance determine as to whether or not the jurisdictional facts obtain in the matter i.e. whether the remittances in issue are chargeable to tax. (iii) The concerned authority will, therefore, in the first instance pass an order on this aspect of the matter. (iv) The concerned authority in this behalf will give personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner, which will include the advocate engaged by the petitioner. (v) A speaking order will be passed and a copy of the same will be furnished to the petitioner. (vi) The petitioner will have liberty to assail the same as per law by taking recourse to an appropriate remedy. (vii) In case, the order passed is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the same will not be given effect to for four weeks, commencing from the date the said order is served on the petitioner. (viii) In case, the concerned authority feels it is necessary to await the decision of the AAR in the matter concerning BT Plc, it will be free to take this aspect into account as well.
|