9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the said order is extracted hereafter : "2. Mr Salil Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the law with respect to deduction of tax at source, with regard to payments made to local authorities, including New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [in short, "NOIDA"], stands settled. 2.1 For this purpose, he has drawn our attention to the judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur and Anr. vs Canara Bank, (2018) 9 SCC 322. 2.2 Mr Kapoor submitted that amongst the appeals in which the aforesaid decision was rendered, included an appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner-bank i.e., CA No.6065/2018. 2.3 Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, our remit is limited to the relief sought by the petitioner-bank, which as noted above, is for issuance of a direction to quash the order dated 28.02.2013." 2. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 27.01.2023, when further time was sought on behalf of the respondent/revenue, to take instructions in the matter. 2.1 A request for accommodation was once again made on behalf of the respondent/revenue on 13.04.2023. 3. Mr Aseem Chawla, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, says that says that he has been assigned the matter recently, and that he will argue the matter based on the record present available to the court. 3.1 In other words, according to Mr Chawla, counter-affidavit on facts will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, had it not been the case that the entity which is out of pocket (i.e., NOIDA) is an instrumentality of the State, and in a sense, is blameless. 8. It is the petitioner bank who procrastinated the matter and thus delayed initiation of an appropriate legal remedy. 9. The record shows that NOIDA was relentlessly following the matter with the petitioner bank for remedial action. What compounded the injury insofar as NOIDA was concerned, is that the petitioner bank took no corrective measures to retrieve at least a part of the amount, once order dated 30.03.2013 was passed on its application under Section 154 of the Act, whereby the demand was reduced from Rs. 1,36,04,250/- to Rs. 50,89,894/-. 10. Furthermore, according to us, insofar as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
