9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction which the respondent has allegedly committed in passing the impugned orders is not a mere error apparent on the face of the record which can be corrected under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - if aggrieved, the petitioner has to pursue the remedy of appeal available under the Statute, but they cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No.12817 to 12821 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2013 - G. ROHINI AND P. NAVEEN RAO , JJ. For the Appellant : A.V. Krishna Koundinya. For the Respondent : J.V. Prasad. ORDER:- PER : G. Rohini The petitioner in all these writ petitions is M/s. Hyderabad Race Club which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining the tax paid on stake money by the horse owners. Thereafter a detailed reply dated 28.2.2013 was submitted furnishing year-wise stake money credited to the respective owner's account. It was also explained that stake money is an income from the activity of owning and maintaining race horses but not winning from horse races and thus the petitioner is not liable to deduct tax at source on payment of stake money to the owners of horses. It was also specifically contended that Section 194B is not at all applicable to stake money payments made by the petitioner. However the impugned orders dated 28.3.2013 came to be passed negativing the contentions of the petitioner and treating the petitioner as an assessee in default under Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernative statutory remedy are not maintainable at all. The said objection is sought to be refuted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contending that the very invocation of Section 194B against the petitioner being erroneous, the impugned orders declaring the petitioner as a defaulter assessee are without jurisdiction and therefore notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy the writ petitions are maintainable. At the outset, it may be pointed out that it is not a case where the respondent lacks power or authority to pass the impugned orders, but the contention of the petitioners is that the statutory power has been erroneously exercised. In the explanations submitted in response to the show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eat the assessee as not being in default even though the time for payment has expired as long as such appeal remains undisposed of. Thus efficacious provisions are available under the Income-tax Act to safeguard the interest of the assessee even during the pendency of the appeal against an order made under Sections 201 (1) 201 (1A) of the Income-tax Act. In case the petitioner's request for such protection is not considered or rejected by the assessing officer, probably a writ petition can be maintained by the petitioner for redressal of their grievance. However, such a stage has not yet come. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petitions at this stage. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
