ROTEK INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI DOLLAR MADAN vs. 1. SHRI SUBHASH VARMA and ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2012 ROTEK INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI DOLLAR MADAN ... Petitioner Versus 1. SHRI SUBHASH VARMA & ANR. ... Respondent Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Asha Desai, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:- 14th March, 2012 P.C. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash and set aside the assessment order made on 23/12/2011 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 33(1), New Delhi. The petitioner also impugns the demand notice dated 23.12.2011 issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing at Dona Paula, Goa and carrying on business of manufacturing of Flexible Packaging Pouches and rolls in Factory situated at Verna Industrial Estate in Goa for last more than 10 years. He is holding regular PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department, showing Goa address as amended. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 33(1), who is respondent no.1 works under respondent no.2. Some time prior to coming to the State of Goa in the year 2000, the petitioner was residing in Delhi and it is his case that since May, 2001, he is

settled in Goa and a factory is set up in Partnership with his son at Verna Industrial Estate and thereafter he has been carrying on business as sole proprietor. The petitioner is not carrying on business activity in Delhi. 3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is the only Authority at Goa, with whom the income tax returns are being filed from time to time, who would have jurisdiction to proceed against him under Section 156 of the Act and pass order in furtherance of the notice of demand. 4. The proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 are void being without jurisdiction and reliance is placed on Section 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. After hearing Shri Rivonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mrs. Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 at some length, we enquired from the Department as to whether it would be agreeable to proceed against the petitioner in terms of the subject notice of demand at Goa and pass an order of assessment at Goa, there was no objection to this course of action. However, there is an apprehension expressed by Mrs. Desai that if the argument of the petitioner in terms of subsection 2 of Section 124 of the Income Tax Act with regard to jurisdiction of Assessment Officer is accepted, thereafter, the Assessment Officer at Goa will find it difficult to proceed as an argument with regard to time bar and limitation would be raised. These assessment proceedings can be transferred to the State of Goa and the department would have no objection to that course, but if the petitioner questions the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of time bar and limitation, then, the department would like to resist the petition.

S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. V. BAKRE, J. SMA