The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 245 of 2020 M/s Brahmaputra Metallics Limited represented through one of its Director Aarsh Sahu Versus ... ... ... Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mr. Gopal Singh, Ranchi 3. Sri Amresh Kumar, the General Manager (M& S), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi
Legal Reasoning
4. Sri Anand A. Khalkho, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi Opposite Parties … … ... With Cont. Case (Civil) No. 409 of 2021 1. Sinclair Industries through its Director Raman Mehra 2. Ruhi Enterprises through its Proprietor Gyanendra Kumar Singh 3. Pearl Industries through its Partner Praveen Kumar Agarwal 4. Snowtemp Commercial (P) Limited through its Director Sujay Bhowal 5. Snowtemp Commercial (P) Limited (SSF Division) through its Director Sujay Bhowal ... ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Gopal Singh, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi 3. Sri Ajit Singh, the General Manager (S & M), Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi 4. Sri J.P. Vishwakarm, the General Manager (Finance), Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi 5. Sri V.S. Mahajan, the General Manager (System), Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi 6. Sri Sanjay Bara, the Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Ranchi … … ... Opposite Parties --------- CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. For the Petitioner: For the State: For the CCL: For the ITD: 06/Dated: 26.07.2023 --------- Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Mohammad Asghar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II Mr. Varun Prabhakar, A.C. to G.P.-III Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. S.C. Mr. Anurag Vijay, A.C. to Sr. S.C. --------- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Decision
ORDER 2. 1. By filing these Civil Contempts, the petitioners in both the cases have alleged for violation of the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 46 of 2018, being the lead case, along with other connected matters. The operative portion of the said order reads hereinbelow:- by two The notices the C.C.L. “19. We accordingly hold, while disposing of these writ petitions:- (a) bearing issued no.CCL/M&S/CSC/2017-18/TCS/13227-34 dated 2nd November, 2017 and CCL/M&S/CSC/2017-18/15377-80 dated 14th December, 2017 would not ipso facto be applicable to all the writ petitioners in the event they comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1A) of Section 206 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 37C thereof by furnishing the declaration in Form 27C. In such a situation, the buyers shall be entitled to the benefits contemplated in the provision of Section 206C (1A) of the Act. In the event such forms are not furnished as per the statutory (b) requirement, it shall be open to C.C.L. to insist on TCS as per the statutory provisions. If C.C.L. has any doubt that the coal is not being used for self- (c) consumption by any of the buyers claiming relaxation in terms of Section 206C (1A) of the Act, it would be open to C.C.L. to take up the matter with individual buyers and insist on TCS if circumstances justify such insistence. But to deny the benefits contemplated in Section 206C(1A) of the Act, so far as the individual writ petitioners are concerned, it would have to be examined first if as buyers or any of them have furnished declarations or verifications under Form 27C or not. If declarations are filed and there is no material to conclude that such declaration is false, then the provisions of Section 206C (1A) would be applicable. On the other hand, if C.C.L. finds that any misdeclaration is made by any individual buyer, then it shall be open to them to take such steps as may be permissible in law. (d) So far as the sum collected in pursuance of the two notices issued by the Central Coalfields Limited as TCS is concerned, in the event it is found that in individual cases the buyers were not required to deposit such sum it shall be adjusted by the Income Tax authorities against future payment of income tax by such buyers. If tax has been deposited under the TCS scheme by a coal buyer who otherwise does not fulfil the requirement of waiver or relaxation from the TCS scheme, then the amount so deposited shall be dealt with as payment of income tax in accordance with law. In those cases, the coal company shall issue TCS certificate in terms of the provisions of Income Tax Act. Such certificates shall be issued on application made by the individual buyers within a period of eight weeks from the date of making of the application. there has been is (e) misdeclaration by any of the writ petitioners, then it shall be open to the Income Tax authorities as also C.C.L. to take steps against them as may be permissible under the law. It shall be open to Income Tax authorities as also C.C.L. to make enquiries in respect of individual writ petitioners to ascertain if there has been any wrong or misdeclartion on their part. 20. All the writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.” the effect finding there that to If 3. 2. In the counter affidavit/show cause, the contemnors/opposite parties state that by following the guidelines of the Income Tax authority, the answering opposite parties succeeded in getting T.C.S. Certificate generated. The Opposite parties have no intention of violating the order passed by the Court but, the delay in issuance of T.C.S. Certificate has been caused due to certain mistakes committed by the Income Tax authorities inasmuch as the amount recovered by the Income Tax authority by attachment should have been reflected in correct number bearing TAN No. RCHC01269C which was with respect to Sales and Marketing Department of the Central Coalfields Ltd., rather, the same by mistake was shown as TAN No. RCHSC00133A and due to such mistake committed by the Income Tax authorities there was difficulty in issuing the T.C.S. Certificate by the Central Coalfields Ltd. Despite of all factum the same was not being rectified, it became impossible for the CCL to issue TCS Certificate. 3. Having no other option, they had filed C.M.P. before the Court seeking clarification/modification of the order. However, during the pendency of the said when in another writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2023 of 2021, this difficulty was pointed out before this Court on being directed a supplementary affidavit was filed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, wherein, he had explained the procedure by which the CCL can get TCS Certificate issued in the concerned consumers by following the said procedure and ultimately, T.C.S Certificate was generated and issued to all the consumers including the present petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the order has been complied and the delay that has occasioned in 4. issuance of the T.C.S. Certificate in favour of the petitioners was not deliberate but, was due to certain intervening circumstances beyond the control of the contemnors/opposite parties, there is no willful delay and deliberate violation on their part. 5. We hereby, drop both the contempt applications. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners that if they have any subsisting claim or subsisting cause of action or grievances against the opposite parties they may approach the appropriate authority by filing appropriate application on the relevant law. 6. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) APK/VK