9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court to entertain the petition against Orissa Forest Corporation Limited. 2. Grant of interim relief to restrain the deduction of tax at source under sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court: The petitioners challenged the vires of sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sought to restrain Orissa Forest Corporation Limited from recovering income-tax pursuant to these sections. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition against respondent No. 7, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, whose principal office is located in Bhuvaneshwar, Orissa, and where the tax deduction at source took place. The court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court. It was noted that the entire transaction of deducting the tax at source occurred outside Gujarat, and simply because the petitioners were assessed to income-tax within Gujarat, it did not confer jurisdiction upon the Gujarat High Court. The court emphasized that the petition did not aver any actions or activities of respondent No. 7 within Gujarat. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. to highlight that filing writ petitions in distant High Courts could delay prompt return and contest. Therefore, the court held that the petition against respondent No. 7, Orissa Forest Corporation Limited, was not maintainable in the Gujarat High Court. 2. Grant of Interim Relief: The petitioners sought interim relief to restrain the respondents, particularly respondent No. 7, from deducting tax at source under sections 44AC and 206C of the Act. The court considered whether the petitioners should be granted such relief, which would effectively stay the operation and implementation of the statutory provisions. The court reiterated that a provision of law is presumed to be constitutionally valid unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court's view in Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das was cited, emphasizing that interim relief staying the recovery of tax should not be granted except under very exceptional circumstances. The court found that the petitioners had not pointed out any exceptional circumstance warranting such relief. Further, the court referenced the Supreme Court's caution in Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. and Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., which stressed the need for circumspection in granting interim relief, particularly against public officials acting in discharge of their statutory duties. The court also noted that interim orders passed by single judges of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, which granted similar relief, did not reference the Supreme Court decisions and did not provide reasons for deviating from the normal rule. The court underscored that in taxation matters, the government represents the community's interests, and staying tax recovery at the interim stage could harm the community's interests. The court concluded that the petitioners had not made out a case for departing from the ordinary rule against granting interim relief in tax recovery matters. Conclusion: For the reasons stated, the court refused the interim relief as prayed for by the petitioners. The ad interim relief granted earlier was vacated.
|
