9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 523 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order passed by CBDT - Seeks declaration that payments towards voyage charter and time charter are not subject to deduction of tax at source u/s 194-I of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( Act ) - Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had neither put up their appearance nor filed any return or affidavit in reply disclosing their stand and chose to keep the representation made by petitioner No.1 pending without any decision thereon - HELD THAT - It is difficult to understand whose contentions are addressed; whether that of the Income Tax Department or petitioner No.1- Association. No reasons are to be found in support of the approval accorded. It is further mentioned that in case of clarification the petitioners may contact the undersigned or CIT (TDS). Again one has to guess what one means by undersigned . Whether Chairperson of CBDT or the Deputy Secretary (Budget) who has signed the order for Chairperson or CIT (TDS) who was one of the parties who had appeared before the CBDT to counter the contentions raised by petitioner No.1- Association. The representation of petitioner No.1- Association has been decided in a most casual manner without assigning any reasons whatsoever as such alleged decision can hardly be said to be a legal and valid decision. The mode and manner in which the compliance of the order of this Court is made it has become necessary for us to bring it to the notice of the CBDT through this order one of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of East India Commercial Co.Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Calcutta 1962 (5) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT which may serve as an eye-opener for them. In the aforesaid backdrop since the decision rendered by CBDT is not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and that it is also in breach of the Law laid down by the Apex Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another 1958 (11) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT ; Ram Saran Das Kapur v. Commissioner of Income-tax Patiala 1969 (3) TMI 24 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and Krishna Swami v. Union of India and others 1992 (8) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT . we are left with no other alternative but to pass the following order (A) Issue notice returnable after three weeks to Smt.Indira Bhargav Mumbai to show cause as to why suitable action should not be initiated against her under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act for not following directions issued by this Court. (B) Issue notice returnable after three weeks to the C.B.D.T. to show cause as to why their order not to be set aside pending disposal of the substantive petition as it is not in conformity with the order of this Court. Petitioners undertake to serve notice. Hamdast allowed. Private service by R.P.A.D. with telegraphic intimation is also permitted.
Issues:
Challenge to letter dated 19th February, 2007, summons dated 12th February, 2007, and letter dated 29th January, 2007 seeking declaration on tax deduction under Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petition contested the directive for tax deduction on payments for voyage charter and time charter under section 194-I of the Income Tax Act. It argued against the imposition of a higher TDS rate of 22.4% instead of the normal rate of 2.244% under section 194-C for payments made under charter agreements. The CBDT failed to respond to the petition, prompting the court to direct them to address the representation made by the petitioner association. The CBDT was instructed to decide on the representation within a specified timeframe after affording the petitioners a hearing. Subsequently, the CBDT's decision was presented to the court, but it was found lacking in compliance with the court's directions. The judgment criticized the CBDT's decision-making process, highlighting a lack of clarity and reasoning in addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner association. The court expressed disappointment in the casual manner in which the CBDT handled the representation, emphasizing the need for a valid and legally sound decision-making process. Referring to previous legal precedents, the court concluded that the CBDT's decision did not align with the court's directions and legal standards, necessitating a specific course of action. In light of the CBDT's non-compliance with the court's directives and failure to adhere to legal precedents, the court issued notices to the concerned parties. One notice was directed to show cause for potential contempt of court actions, while another was issued to the CBDT to justify their decision, which was deemed non-conforming to the court's order. The order also allowed for private service of notices, emphasizing the seriousness of the matter and the need for compliance with legal directives.
|
