Telangana High Court
Mrs. Nowhera Shaik vs The Union Of India And 3 Others on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.P.No.42847 of 2022
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. M.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India for respondent No.1; and Ms. K.Mamata
Choudary, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax
Department for respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to
consider the review petition filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 21.09.2022 passed by the said respondent under Section 179
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter).
3. A perusal of the order dated 21.09.2022 would go to show
that there is income tax arrears against M/s.Heera Retail
(Hyderabad) Private Limited to the tune of Rs.992 crores
(approximately) for various assessment years. Despite several
opportunities and recovery measures, the assessee failed to pay the
::2::
tax arrears. Therefore, letter dated 13.07.2022 was issued through
mail as well as through speed post to the petitioner being the
Director of the assessee company to show cause as to why she
should not be held liable for payment of tax arrears of the assessee
company under Section 179(1) of the Act. The order records that
the petitioner did not file any reply. Hence, a view was taken that
petitioner had no objection to treat her as liable for payment of tax
arrears of the assessee company under Section 179(1) of the Act.
Accordingly, it has been held that petitioner being the Director of
assessee company is jointly and severally liable for payment of tax
arrears of the assessee company amounting to Rs.992 crores
(approximately). She has been directed to pay the same along with
interest under Section 220(2) of the Act till the date of payment. In
the event of failure, it has been mentioned that petitioner would be
treated as an assessee in default and recovery proceedings would be
initiated to recover the tax arrears.
4. Petitioner filed a petition for review of the aforesaid order
dated 21.09.2022 before respondent No.3 on 11.10.2022. With the
::3::
grievance that no decision was taken on the said review petition,
the related writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner.
5. On 29.11.2022, we had passed the following order:
Petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent
to consider her application for review of order dated
21.09.2022 passed under Section 179 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the
'Act').
When we queried learned counsel for the
petitioner as to whether Section 179 of the Act or any
other provision of the Act provides for review,
learned counsel has drawn our attention to a
judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapra Mazoor
Ekta Union v. Management of M/s. Birla Cotton
Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2005 AIR
(Supreme Court) 1782] more particularly to para 20
thereof and submits that procedural review is
inherent in a quasi judicial authority.
Ms. Mamata Choudary, learned Standing Counsel,
Income Tax Department to obtain instructions.
List on 12.12.2022 under the same caption.
6. In the hearing today, learned Senior Standing Counsel,
Income Tax Department submits that letter dated 13.07.2022 was
::4::
issued to the petitioner through e-mail as well as through speed
post and was served upon her. Notwithstanding the same,
petitioner did not appear before respondent No.3.
7. However, the same is disputed by learned counsel for the
petitioner, who submits that petitioner did not receive any such
letter.
8. Be that as it may, without entering into the above aspect, we
are of the view that before fastening liability on the Director of the
assessee company i.e., the petitioner, a reasonable opportunity of
hearing is required to be granted to her, more so because the
amount involved is quite substantial. It will only be in the aid of
justice if a reasonable opportunity of hearing is granted to the
petitioner. It is in that context, we are inclined to accept the plea of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the review petition filed by
the petitioner may be considered by respondent No.3 after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
::5::
9. That being the position, we direct respondent No.3 to give
an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding her
liability to pay the tax arrears of the assessee company
i.e., M/s. Heera Retail (Hyderabad) Private Limited and thereafter
pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
10. Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3
on 07.01.2023 at 11:00 a.m. whereafter respondent No.3 shall
proceed with the matter.
11. We clarify that order dated 21.09.2022 would be subject to
the outcome of the fresh consideration by respondent No.3.
12. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
disposed of.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 12.12.2022
LUR
