SINNARAPPA NANJUNDAREDDY SUBBAREDDY, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP/8862/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01017579202509 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions, disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner had not submitted a reply to the recovery notice at Annexure-G dated 14.03.2024. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before Respondent No.1 on 28.04.2025 and file a reply along with supporting documents to the said recovery notice. Respondent No.1 was directed to consider the reply after providing the petitioner with a sufficient opportunity. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no precipitative or coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until Respondent No.1 passes appropriate orders. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sinnarappa Nanjundareddy Subbareddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a digitally signed notice dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure-G) issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.1). This notice proposed the recovery of Tax Collected at Source (TCS) amounts claimed by the petitioner but denied by Respondent No.1 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash this notice and declare the recovery impermissible under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Alternatively, the petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing statutory appeals. The respondents included the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and Deputy Commissioner, Income-Tax (CPC).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure-G) issued by Respondent No.1, proposing recovery of TCS amount for assessment years 2007-08 to 2017-18, is valid and legally sustainable under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and mixed fact and law) Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner sought to quash the recovery notice, arguing that the proposed recovery of TCS amounts for the specified assessment years is impermissible under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the alternative, the petitioner prayed for condonation of delay in filing statutory appeals against any intimation or order related to these assessment years. Contentions of the Revenue: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments. However, the issuance of the recovery notice implies the revenue's stance that the TCS amount is recoverable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 206C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15325 WP No. 8862 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8862 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SINNARAPPA NANJUNDAREDDY SUBBAREDDY, SON OF SRI SINNARAPPA NANJUNDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO. 18, NARAYANA REDDY BUILDING, 1ST CROSS, MUNEKULALA, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 037. ALSO AT NO. 108/1, 1ST MAIN, MUNEKOLALU EXTENSION, MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU – 560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU – 4, BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

3.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX (CPC) CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE,

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,

BENGALURU – 560 500. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 SRI. ARAVIND V.CHAVAN, ADV. FOR R3)

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15325 WP No. 8862 of 2025

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY COMMUNICATED NOTICE DATED 14.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/RCV/F/17/2023- 24/1062615958(1) AND ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-G PROPOSING RECOVERY OF TCS AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER AND DENIED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2017-18.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ for quashing of the digitally signed and electronically communicated notice dated 14.03.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1 and bearing DIN and Notice No.ITBA/RCV/F/17 /2023-24/1062615958(1) and enclosed as Annexure G proposing recovery of TCS amount claimed by the Petitioner and denied by Respondent No.1 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2017-18; b. Issue a writ declaring that recovery of the TCS amount vide Annexure G claimed by the Petitioner for the A.Y.2007-08 to 2017-18 and denied by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 is impermissible under the provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961; c. In the alternative, issue a writ directing that the delay that may arise on account of filing of the

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15325 WP No. 8862 of 2025

statutory appeals challenging the intimation/order for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2017-18 is on account of sufficient cause and liable to be condoned; d. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in this matter including but not limited to costs of this petition.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, it is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that petitioner has not submitted his reply to Annexure-G dated 14.03.2024, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit reply to Recovery Notice at Annexure-G dated 14.03.2024. 4. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

i) The petition is hereby disposed of.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:15325 WP No. 8862 of 2025

ii) The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 28.04.2025, on which date, he shall file reply along with documents to Recovery Notice dated 14.03.2024 at Annexure–G which shall be considered by respondent No.1 after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. iii) It is further directed that till respondent No.1 passes appropriate orders, shall not take any precipitative/coercive steps against the petitioner.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24

More judgments on Section 206C

All 269 judgments and leading authorities on Section 206C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →