Delhi High Court
Van Oord Acz Bv vs Dy. Director Of Income Tax & Ors. on 22 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002) 178 CTR Del 515
JUDGMENT
By the Court
CM No. 9785 of 2002 in CW No. 3708 of 2002
By this application the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit remittances in terms of order dated 4-3-2002, passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), New Delhi, respondent No. 1 herein, under section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner is that despite furnishing of requisite documents/information, in terms of para 11 of the said order, the first respondent is not passing any order on its applications dated 29-5-2002, 20-8-2002 (two) seeking permission to remit Euro 2,217,860.84, Euro 6,53,032.49 and Rs. 43,708,599, respectively without deduction of tax at source.
2. The application is resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that on the one hand the petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent to be its assessing officer, and on the other is seeking enforcement of the order passed by the same officer. It is pleaded that the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time.
2. The application is resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that on the one hand the petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent to be its assessing officer, and on the other is seeking enforcement of the order passed by the same officer. It is pleaded that the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. From the record we find that challenge in this and connected writ petitions is to the action initiated by respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act in respect of assessment years 1995-96 to 2001-02, and one of the grounds urged is that since the petitioner does not have a permanent establishment in Delhi, the said officer does not have territorial jurisdiction to assess it in respect of the aforenoted assessment years. However, order dated 4-3-2002, not only pertains to the remittances after 4-4-2001, for which the petitioner claims to have obtained the permission of the Reserve Bank of India and it is still in force. A mere challenge to the jurisdiction does not wipe out the effect of the said order, subject of course to petitioner's complying with the conditions stipulated therein.
4. From the record we find that challenge in this and connected writ petitions is to the action initiated by respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act in respect of assessment years 1995-96 to 2001-02, and one of the grounds urged is that since the petitioner does not have a permanent establishment in Delhi, the said officer does not have territorial jurisdiction to assess it in respect of the aforenoted assessment years. However, order dated 4-3-2002, not only pertains to the remittances after 4-4-2001, for which the petitioner claims to have obtained the permission of the Reserve Bank of India and it is still in force. A mere challenge to the jurisdiction does not wipe out the effect of the said order, subject of course to petitioner's complying with the conditions stipulated therein.
5. Since the petitioner claims that it has filed with the first respondent all the relevant documents, we feel that the pendency of these writ petitions should not come in the way of the officer to deal with the aforementioned applications. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's said applications, we would direct the officer concerned to take a final decision on the said applications as expeditiously as possible but not later than 22-11-2002. It will be open to the officer to call for any information as may be considered essential for the said purpose.
5. Since the petitioner claims that it has filed with the first respondent all the relevant documents, we feel that the pendency of these writ petitions should not come in the way of the officer to deal with the aforementioned applications. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's said applications, we would direct the officer concerned to take a final decision on the said applications as expeditiously as possible but not later than 22-11-2002. It will be open to the officer to call for any information as may be considered essential for the said purpose.
6. At this stage, Mr. Jolly, learned counsel for the respondents, prays for a clarification to the effect that the assessing officer would be free to take necessary steps to protect the interests of revenue. We feel that the Act, a self-contained code, contains sufficient provisions in this behalf and it is for the officer concerned to take appropriate steps as may be considered necessary. No clarification at this juncture is called for.
6. At this stage, Mr. Jolly, learned counsel for the respondents, prays for a clarification to the effect that the assessing officer would be free to take necessary steps to protect the interests of revenue. We feel that the Act, a self-contained code, contains sufficient provisions in this behalf and it is for the officer concerned to take appropriate steps as may be considered necessary. No clarification at this juncture is called for.
The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
CW No. 3708/2002
It is stated that rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, but the same is not on record. Let the counsel check up with the office and have the same placed on record before the next date.
List on 27-11-2002.
OPEN
