9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 554 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of order beyond the scope of Show cause notice - Statutory time limit for filing of appeal already expired - No reply filed to the SCN - the issue regarding processing charges liable for TDS under Section 13(1) of the Act, not raised in SCN, but is included in the impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - If a notice was issued with regard to any aspect, the same has to be answered by the Assessee and it is for the Department to raise all the issues or queries by virtue of a show cause notice or by any other form and sought for the reply of the Assessee. However, in the present case, the Department had brought up the aforesaid issue of a sum of Rs. 76,62,986/- towards processing charges which liable for TDS, only in the impugned order and the same was not at all raised in the show cause notices. Thus, the said impugned order is not in accordance with law. Though the impugned order was passed on 10.05.2022 and the time limit to file the appeal was also expired at the time of filing this petition, this Court feels that the respondents had committed a serious error in its decision making process while dealing with the issue pertaining to a sum of Rs. 76,62,986/- towards the processing charges liable to TDS and impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Thus, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 and remit the matter back to the respondent for re-consideration. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The challenge against the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 regarding processing charges liable for TDS under Section 13(1) of the Income Tax Act. Summary: Issue 1: Impugned Order Validity The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 10.05.2022, contending that the processing charges liable for TDS under Section 13(1) of the Income Tax Act were confirmed without being raised in any of the notices issued. The respondent admitted to not disclosing this aspect in the notices. The Court held that the impugned order bringing up the issue of processing charges not mentioned in the notices was not in accordance with the law. Issue 2: Decision Making Process Error Despite the expiration of the appeal filing time limit, the Court found that the respondents erred in their decision-making process by not raising the issue of processing charges in the show cause notices. The Court deemed the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, remitting the matter back to the respondent for re-consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days, and the respondent was instructed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the closure of the connected miscellaneous petition.
|
