9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall redo the assessment after issuing show cause notices afresh to writ petitioner - petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.22212, 22215 & 22216 of 2019 And W.M.P.No.21496, 21497 & 21500 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth For the Respondent : Mr.V.Haribabu Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in all the three writ petitions is before this Court. Mr.V.Haribabu, learned 'Additional Government Pleader' ('AGP' for brevity), who accepts notice on behalf of sole respondent in all the three writ petitions is before this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot now be called upon to pay tax, which the writ petitioner ought to have deducted by way of TDS inter alia under Section 13 of TNVAT Act. To be noted, term 'deductee' is used for convenience, though actual deduction TDS has not happened. 6. Respondent, holding that the reply submitted by writ petitioner cannot be considered on the ground that it contravenes of TNVAT Act, passed three assessment orders bearing Reference Nos.TIN: 33982320908/2012-13, TIN: 33982320908/2013-14 and TIN: 33982320908/2014-15, all dated 04.03.2019 (hereinafter 'impugned assessment orders' in plural and impugned assessment order' in singular). Assailing the impugned assessment orders, instant writ petitions ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee is obliged under Section 194C to deduct tax at source on contract payments as and when such payments exceed ₹ 20,000/- and to pay such TDS to the Government account within one week from the last date of the month in which deduction is made. It is also found by the Tribunal that it is a clear case where the assessee has failed to deduct tax on the entire contract payments made to the contractor and the assessee has also failed to produce any evidence for the taxes already deducted as contended by them. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the assessee is in default under Section 201(1) and also liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) from the day on which the tax was required to be paid under Section 194C upto the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the same. Further appeal came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said appeal, the Apex Court found that the Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the tax once again could not be recovered from the appellant therein since the tax has already been paid by the recipient of the income. The Apex Court also relied on the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 275/201/95-IT (B) dated 29.1.1997 wherein it is declared that no demand visualised under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the Revenue that taxes due have paid by the deducteeassessee. While holding so, the Apex Court however pointed out that such position will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts liability till the date of actual payment made by the recipient. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the liability of the assessee and pass fresh orders. The questions of law raised in both the appeals are answered accordingly. The Tax Case Appeals are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.' 10. There is no disputation that the principle of law or the proposition is that, in cases of TDS, when the deductee has paid the entire tax liability on the monies received, the entity/person, who has the obligation to deduct at source cannot be mulcted with liability. However, the rider is that the entity which has the obligation of deduction and has not complied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
