9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of demands created under Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Section 206C to L-13 and L-14 licensees. 3. Legality of notices issued to bankers under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Demands Created Under Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioners, engaged in the manufacturing and sale of liquor, challenged the demands created by the Income-tax Officer under Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued to their bankers under Section 226(3) to pay the tax dues. The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant decisions impacting the adjudication of the issue. 2. Applicability of Section 206C to L-13 and L-14 Licensees: The Finance Act, 1988, introduced Sections 44AC and 206C for computing profits and gains from the business of certain goods, including liquor. The Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, added a proviso to Section 44AC, exempting certain buyers from its applicability. Following this, distilleries began deducting tax at source from L-13 licensees, which was contested in various High Courts, including Punjab and Haryana. In *Gian Chand Ashok Kumar and Co. v. Union of India* [1991], the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that L-13 licensees fall within the proviso to Section 44AC(1)(a) and thus are not liable under Section 206C. This was affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in *K.K. Mittal and Co. v. Union of India* [1991], which extended the benefit to L-14 licensees as well. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions against these decisions. The Finance Act, 1992, deleted Section 44AC, incorporating its substantial portion into Section 206C, making it a charging as well as a collecting section. Despite this amendment, the court in *K.K. Mittal and Co. v. Union of India* [1993] maintained that L-13 licensees are not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 206C. This position was further clarified in *Satya Pal Amrik Singh and Co. v. Union of India* [1997], where the court held that sales by CITCO to L-14 licensees are subsequent sales and thus exempt from Section 206C. In *Naresh Kumar and Co. v. Union of India* [2000], the court ruled that L-14A licensees are not "buyers" under Section 206C, as their purchases are second sales excluded by the Explanation to the section. 3. Legality of Notices Issued to Bankers Under Section 226(3): Respondent No. 3 issued notices to the petitioners and their bankers to collect tax under Section 206C. The petitioners argued that L-13, L-14, and L-14A licensees do not fall within the meaning of "buyer" under Section 206C, supported by the judgments in *K.K. Mittal* and *Satya Pal Amrik Singh*. They contended that the demands and notices were ultra vires and violated their fundamental right to trade. The respondents argued that the constitutional validity of Section 206C was upheld by the Supreme Court in *Union of India v. A. Sanyasi Rao* [1996] and relied on the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in *Rudra and Company v. Union of India* [1998], which was later overruled by the Full Bench in *Saini and Co. v. Union of India* [2000]. The court agreed with the Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in *Saini and Co.*, holding that the deletion of Section 44AC and the amendment of Section 206C did not change the legal position regarding L-13 and L-14 licensees. The consistent view in *K.K. Mittal*, *Satya Pal Amrik Singh*, and *Naresh Kumar* was upheld, declaring that L-13 and L-14 licensees are not "buyers" under Section 206C, and thus, the demands and notices issued were illegal. Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned demand notices under Section 206C and the notices under Section 226(3) were declared illegal and quashed. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
