2022 (12) TMI 1023 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of appeal before High Court - Intimation of demand made u/s 200A - Income Tax liability demanded from bank of the petitioner - mechanism for redressal of grievances - notices issued by the respondent No. 3 u/s 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act calling upon the Jammu and Kashmir Bank, who holds money for and on account of the Assessee, to make the deposit of the outstanding liability standing against the petitioner - HELD THAT - There was failure on the part of the petitioner to meet the demand and deposit the outstanding tax. Accordingly, Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was pressed into service, and a direction was issued to the banker of the petitioner to pay out of the accounts of the petitioner, a sum equivalent to the Income Tax liability standing against the petitioner. The petitioner in this petition is seeking to contest the demand on merits, in that, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the entire Tax deducted at source stood deposited, and, therefore, the demand raised by the respondent no. 3 was non-est in the eye of law. Without going into the merits of the demand and adjudicating the disputed question of facts, we are of the view that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the intimation of demand issued by respondent no. 3 under Sub-Section 1 of Section 200A is well within its rights to file an appeal before the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals), and cannot straightway approach this Court by invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The notices issued by the respondent, no. 3 under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, are dependent on the sustainability of the demand. When a statute provides a mechanism for redressal of grievances, the person aggrieved must go through the mechanism so provided. He cannot be permitted to rush to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 266 of the Constitution of India, moreso when the statutory mechanism itself provides for filing of statutory appeals and revisions. The legal position in this regard is well settled and does not call for any reiteration. We find this petition which is directed against the notices issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 266 (3) of Income Tax Act, not maintainable in the absence of challenge to the intimation of demand issued under Sub-Section 1 of Section 200A. There is inseparable causal connection between intimation of demand under Sub-Section 1 of Section 200A and recovery proceedings under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act. In the presence of subsistence of cause, the effect cannot be effaced or avoided. As observed above, any order passed by the Income Tax Authority under Sub-section 1 of Section 200A is appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, it is up to the petitioner to work out his remedy or accept the demand. We find no merit in this petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notices/orders for payment of outstanding tax liability under the Income Tax Act without contesting the demand raised by the Assessing authority under Section 200A.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership concern engaged in construction projects, challenged notices/orders directing payment of outstanding tax liability. The petitioner did not contest the demand notice for arrears of Income Tax dues but challenged the notices issued for payment of a specific amount.

2. The petitioner had been regularly filing TDS returns but failed to report tax deductions on salary payments for several financial years. The Assessing authority raised a demand under Section 201(A) of the Income Tax Act, asking for payment of the outstanding amount. The petitioner did not respond to the demand or a subsequent show cause notice.

3. Respondents argued the petition's maintainability due to the availability of appeal remedies under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. They contended that the Act provides mechanisms for redressal, and extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked bypassing statutory remedies.

4. The Court found the challenge to the notices under Section 226(3) without contesting the demand under Section 200A was not maintainable. The petitioner was aggrieved by the notices to the bank for depositing the outstanding liability, not the demand itself.

5. The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings under Section 226 could not be initiated without being declared "Assessee in default" under Section 201. The Court disagreed, stating that the petitioner had not responded to the demand made under Section 200A, leading to the recovery action.

6. The Court noted that the petitioner could appeal the demand under Section 200A before the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of directly approaching the High Court. The notices under Section 226(3) were dependent on the sustainability of the demand.

7. Quoting precedents, the Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The existence of an alternative remedy should not be ignored, especially when the statute provides a mechanism for redressal.

8. The Court held the petition against the notices under Section 226(3) not maintainable without challenging the intimation of demand under Section 200A. It highlighted the causal connection between the demand and recovery proceedings, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory appeal remedies.

9. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal under the Income Tax Act if aggrieved by the demand intimation issued under Section 200A. The judgment stressed the importance of following statutory procedures for redressal.