9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is common order. Facts may be noticed as emerging from Special Civil Application No.3600 of 2013. Petitioner, Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd ('the Company' for short) is a Government company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20th February 2013 as at Annexure A to the petition issued by the respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.3.22 crores (rounded off). In such notice, it was further conveyed as under: "2. The amount should be paid to the manager, authorised bank/State Bank of India, Reserve Bank of India at within fifteen days of the service of notice. The previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has been obtained for allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted and further that in terms of sub-Section (6) of Section 220 of the Act, the petitioner assessee may not be treated as an assessee in default. Without disposing of such application/objection, the respondent is proceeding with coercive recovery. 3. Counsel further pointed out that though under sub Section (1) of Section 220, the Assessing Officer has the power to reduce the period of 30 days for recovery, same should be done only on Assessing Officer having reason to believe that it will be detrimental to the Revenue, if the full period of 30 days is allowed. He submitted that in the present case, no such reasons are either recorded or exist since the petitioner is a Government Company and whose liquidity is not in doubt. 4. Issue noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the Revenue, however, stated under instructions of the respondent, who is present before the Court, that no prior approval in writing was obtained from the Joint Commissioner though he further stated that oral approval of the Joint Commissioner can be presumed by virtue of the fact that such decision was taken in a joint meeting with several Income Tax Authorities, including the Joint Commissioner. Section 156 of the Act pertains to notice of demand and provides, inter alia, that when any tax, interest, penalty fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable. Sub-section ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be sufficient to enable him to believe that it was detrimental to the revenue if the full period of 30 days was allowed. Further, admittedly, no prior approval of the Joint Commissioner in writing was obtained. Mere discussion in a meeting of several high ranking tax officers chalking out certain action plan for timely recoveries would not, in our opinion, satisfy such a requirement which must be observed individually. By very nature of things, curtailing the period of 30 days and reducing the same for tax recovery by a shorter period would cause considerable inconvenience to the assessee. The Act does recognize the power of the Assessing Officer to do so. Exercise of such power would be dependent on the reason to believe that it will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
