9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffectively deal with the case made out by respondents ( See Om Shri Jigar Association Vs Union of India [ 1994 (5) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] In the circumstances, without making any observations on the merits of the case, we are quashing the impugned order dated 30th March 2021 and any consequential demand notice issued therein and remand the matter to respondent no.1 to pass fresh orders after hearing petitioner. If respondent no.1 feels need to add any further points in the show cause notice, respondent no.1 shall issue fresh show cause notice to petitioner and petitioner may respond to the said show cause notice. We keep open all rights and contentions of the parties including petitioner s right to raise the issue of limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t source . This is followed by notices dated 18th February 2021, 4th March 2021, 9th March 2021 and 16th March 2021 under Section 201 of the Act. Petitioner replied to these show cause notices by its letters dated 22nd February 2021, 10th March 2021, 18th March 2021 and a comprehensive reply dated 26th March 2021. 4. Respondent no.1 passed order dated 30th March 2021 under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) read with Section 195 of the Act holding petitioner liable to pay a sum of ₹ 5,24,92,294/- under Section 201(1) of the Act and sum of ₹ 3,24,47,398/- under Section 201(1A) of the Act and made a total demand of ₹ 8,45,12,593/-. The notice of demand under Section 156 for ₹ 8,49,39,692/- was also made on account of defaul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the work assigned by the PDR solutions. In our view, these are going into the merits of the matters but does not answer the moot point as to why all the replies given by petitioner to show cause notices issued have not been considered and dealt with in the impugned order. Ms Bharucha also referred to the affidavit in reply and submitted that petitioner was dependent PE for PDR Solutions UAE and thus there was dependent PE in India and remittance of tax in India as business income. To a query posed by the court, Ms Bharucha in fairness stated that the show cause notice does not refer to this issue and petitioner has not been called upon to show cause why it should not be held that petitioner was dependent PE for PDR Solutions UAE etc. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
