9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Anr. vs Canara Bank [ 2018 (7) TMI 664 - SUPREME COURT] . According to us, insofar as the respondent/revenue is concerned, the retention of the amount from the point of view of NOIDA, is contrary to the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution. If we allow the respondent/revenue to retain the money, it would, in effect, amount to putting the court s imprimatur, on the respondent/revenue s act of levying and/or collecting tax, without the authority of law. In our opinion, in this particular case, having regard to the fact that public funds are involved, law and justice should meld. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent/revenue will re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Year (AY) 2011-12. 3. Insofar as the instant writ petition is concerned, although the issue is the same, it relates to AY 2005-06. 4. It is in this context that the petitioner-bank has now woken up from its slumber and sought to assail the order dated 28.02.2013 passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ]. 5. We may also note that insofar as the AY in issue is concerned i.e., AY 2005-06, an order dated 30.03.2013 was passed under Section 154 of the Act, whereby the original demand raised against the petitioner-bank amounting to Rs. 1,36,04,250/- was reduced to Rs. 50,89,894/-. The petitioner-bank, it appears, did not seek even the enforcement of this order for all these years. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2 It is Mr Chawla s contention that the petitioner bank approached this court after an enormous delay, something that we have already observed on 05.01.2023 and, therefore, is guilty of delay and laches. 4. Mr Salil Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the petitioner bank, informs us that the petitioner bank was a party to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur and Anr. vs Canara Bank, (2018) 9 SCC 322. 5. It is Mr Kapoor s contention that the judgment dealt with a bunch of matters, including the petitioner bank s action. 5.1 Furthermore, Mr Kapoor says that in that bunch, the petitioner bank had agitated the very same issue, albeit qua AY 2011-12. This aspect has already been note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent/revenue is concerned, the retention of the amount from the point of view of NOIDA, is contrary to the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution. 11. If we allow the respondent/revenue to retain the money, it would, in effect, amount to putting the court s imprimatur, on the respondent/revenue s act of levying and/or collecting tax, without the authority of law. 12. In our opinion, in this particular case, having regard to the fact that public funds are involved, law and justice should meld. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the order dated 28.02.2013 passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) read with Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. It is ordered accordingly. 13. The respondent/revenue will refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
