9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Sriprakash For the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh ORDER 1. The captioned writ petitions assail three (3) separate orders passed by respondent No.1. 1.1. In W.P.No.40936 of 2016, the order dated 03.11.2016, is assailed; in W.P.No.40937 of 2016, the order assailed is also dated 03.11.2016; and lastly, in W.P.No.40938 of 2016, the order assailed is dated 26.10.2016. 2. To be noted, two (2) separate orders of even date, i.e., 03.11.2016, pertain to the Assessment Year (in short AY) 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, while the order dated 26.10.2016 pertains to the AY 2015-2016. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been called upon to pay tax and interest qua e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and CMRL is a contract other than civil works contract, withholding tax had to be collected at the rate of 5% and not at the rate of 2%, as was done in the instant case. (ii) Respondent No.1 has committed a mistake in law in assuming that because, as alleged, TDS was deducted by CMRL at a lesser rate, the petitioner had not paid the tax, which was due and payable under the Act. For this purpose, the petitioner relies upon the communication dated 27.10.2016, which is addressed to respondent No.1. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Section 13 of the Act. (iii) The only person, who would be liable for the alleged failure in short collection of withholding tax would be CMRL and not the petitioner. (iv) Since, the allegation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that liability under Section 13 of the Act would fall on CMRL and not on the petitioner. Therefore, consequences, if any, that flow from shortfall in the collection of withholding tax can only be visited upon, if at all, on CMRL. 8. Therefore, in my view, respondent No.1 proceeded on a wrong basis and completely misdirected himself in law. 9. Having said so, the stand taken by the petitioner before me that the entire taxable turnover had been disclosed, and that, requisite tax had been paid, notwithstanding the short collection of tax at source by CMRL, is an aspect, which would, perhaps, need to be enquired into. 9.1. Therefore, the assessment orders passed by respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
