9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the respondent to adjust the refund due to the petitioner against the tax due from a foreign company and to demand payment of the balance of tax. Analysis: The petitioner entered into a collaboration agreement with a U.S. company, agreeing to pay a down payment and recurring royalty. The Government approved the agreement, specifying taxes only on royalty payments. The petitioner remitted payments and deducted tax at source. The respondent adjusted a refund due to the petitioner against a tax liability of the U.S. company, demanding further payment. The petitioner challenged this adjustment, arguing it is not liable for the U.S. company's taxes. The respondent justified the adjustment under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, stating the petitioner's liability to deduct tax at source. The petitioner contended that the new ground in the counter-affidavit cannot be used to justify the adjustment. The court held that without treating the petitioner as an "assessee in default" under Section 201, the refund cannot be adjusted directly. The court emphasized the need for a written order under Section 201 for appealability. The impugned letter did not treat the petitioner as an "assessee in default," rendering it legally unsustainable. The court further analyzed the reasons given in the impugned letter for the adjustment. The first reason, based on the U.S. company's assertion that the petitioner is liable for all taxes, was deemed unfounded. The collaboration agreement indicated the U.S. company's liability for taxes, and the respondent erred in relying solely on the U.S. company's understanding without independent investigation. The second reason, citing two earlier payments by the petitioner on behalf of the U.S. company, was also dismissed as insufficient to establish liability for the assessed tax amount. The court held that these past payments did not conclusively establish liability, especially considering they were made to resolve differences in tax rates under Section 195. The court quashed the impugned letter, allowing the Department to conduct a proper investigation to determine liability and issue a valid order under Section 201 if necessary, without expressing an opinion on the ultimate liability of the petitioner. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned letter. The decision did not prevent the Department from investigating liability and issuing a valid order under Section 201 if required, without opining on the petitioner's ultimate tax liability.
|
