2013 (12) TMI 1317 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition against Notice u/s 194C and 148 - TDS on transportation charges and service charges, and on royalty under Sections 194C and 194J - alternative remedy - Held that - When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file return and if assessee so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices - The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time - On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order - As the reasons have been disclosed in proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years. The notices both under Section 194C, where the objections are yet to be decided, and the notices under Section 148 of the Act - All the writ petitions are thus premature - No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners at this stage nor any demands have been created, to interfere and to decide factual issues, calling for interpretation of the conditions of contract and verification of payment - All the writ petitions dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. - Decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging show cause notices for not deducting TDS on payments made to Gas Authority of India (GAIL) under Sections 194C and 194-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Challenging notices issued under Section 148 for reopening of assessment due to failure to deduct TDS on transportation charges and royalty.
Maintainability of writ petitions against the notices under Sections 194C and 148.

Analysis:

Challenging Show Cause Notices for Non-Deduction of TDS:
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing glassware and bangles, challenged show cause notices for not deducting TDS on payments made to GAIL for transportation and service charges, and royalty under Sections 194C and 194-J of the Income Tax Act. The notices under Section 147/148 were issued based on the belief that a significant portion of the billing amount escaped assessment due to non-deduction of TDS. The petitioners contended that the transportation charges by GAIL did not attract TDS under Section 194-C and that GAIL had paid taxes on these charges. They also argued that royalty on natural gas did not fall under Section 194-C. The High Court found these challenges premature as objections had not been filed, and alternative remedies were available before the Income Tax Authorities.

Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against Notices Under Sections 194C and 148:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions against the notices under Sections 194C and 148, emphasizing that objections had not been filed, rendering the petitions premature. The court noted that the petitioners had not suffered any prejudice at that stage, and factual issues regarding contract conditions and tax payments by GAIL could be addressed before the Income Tax Officer (TDS)/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Citing the judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., the court directed the petitioners to file objections within a reasonable time, subject to further objections, and maintained that no merits of the issues were considered in the dismissal of the writ petitions.

Conclusion:
The High Court found the challenges to show cause notices and reopening of assessments premature due to the petitioners' failure to file objections. The court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies before the Income Tax Authorities for addressing the issues raised. The dismissal of the writ petitions was based on the grounds of premature filing and the need to exhaust available remedies, without delving into the merits of the contentions presented by the petitioners.