M/S G M INFINITE DWELLING INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the petition. It held that while the petitioners had submitted detailed replies and documents explaining the delay in TDS payment and had paid the amount with penal interest, these explanations were not considered by the respondents in their proper perspective. The Court noted the petitioners' assertion that they could submit additional documents if given another opportunity. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court set aside the impugned order dated May 31, 2024, and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for fresh reconsideration. The petitioners were granted liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents, and the respondent was directed to provide sufficient opportunity, including a personal hearing, before proceeding in accordance with the law.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, M/s G M Infinite Dwelling India Pvt Ltd. and its directors, are challenging an order dated May 31, 2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, sanctioning prosecution. For Assessment Year 2016-2017, the petitioners delayed remitting deducted TDS by seven months, paying it with penal interest on August 17, 2016. Subsequently, on January 14, 2020, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice seeking reasons why prosecution proceedings should not be recommended. The petitioners responded, citing demonetization, GST implementation, and the COVID-19 pandemic as causes for financial distress and cash flow issues. Despite these explanations and a request to submit further documents, the Commissioner proceeded to sanction prosecution.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed by the first respondent under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, sanctioning prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that their delay in remitting TDS was due to reasonable causes, including demonetization, GST implementation, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely impacted the company's financial health and cash flow. They also contended that they requested an opportunity to produce additional supporting documents, which was not adequately considered. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the impugned order was detailed and well-considered, and therefore, did not warrant interference by the High Court. They asserted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the petitioners, and they were not entitled to any further indulgence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
279(1), 276B, 278B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition the petitioners seeks for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1065319712(1) dated 31.05.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 279(1) of the Act vide Annexure-F,
b. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Criminal Case registered as CC Nos.199/2024 and 200/2024 filed by the second respondent on the files of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in which the summons dated 8.7.2024 vide Annexure-G, Annexure-G1 and Annexure-G2 are issued to petitioners,
c. Pass such other Writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that for the assessment year 2016-2017, the petitioner deducted tax at source (TDS) and remitted the said amount to the credit of the Central Government by 17.08.2016, after 7 months along with penal interest. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54225 Subsequently, on 14.01.2020, the second respondent issued a notices to the petitioners seeking explanation as to why prosecution proceedings should not be recommended against the petitioners on account of the delayed payment deduction of TDS by the petitioners. The petitioners having submitted replies dated 20.01.2020 and 28.01.2020, the first respondent issued show cause notices dated 15.03.2024 and 30.04.2024 to which the petitioners submitted detailed replies dated 16.02.2024 and 02.05.2024, interalia contending that the reasonable cause for delayed payment of TDS was on account of demonetization policy and subsequent GST implementation as also the COVID-19 pandemic on account of which the company faced financial loss and cash flows where cash flow was badly affected and huge monies had to be borrowed from NBFC's by way of debentures to run the business activities. It is submitted on instructions that the petitioners also requested time to produce additional documents in support of its claim. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54225
Pursuant to the aforesaid notices and replies, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 granting sanction for prosecution under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, aggrieved by which the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that since the impugned order is detailed and a well considered order, the same does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition and sufficient opportunity had been extended/granted in favour of the petitioners who are not entitled to any indulgence in the present petition.
A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that though the petitioners had submitted detailed replies along with documents to indicate that the TDS amount was HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54225 subsequently paid together with penal interest and offering an explanation as to why there was a delay on the part of the petitioners, the same has not been considered by the respondents in its proper perspective.
Further in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioners that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioners would submit additional documents in support of its claim, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and set aside the impugned order at Annexure-F passed by the first respondent and remit the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result the following: ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 31.05.2024 at Annexure-F is hereby set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54225 (iii) The matter is remitted back to first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to submit additional pleadings, documents, replies etc., which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
