Court orders CBDT to address representations on Section 194-O of Income Tax Act promptly

The court directed respondent No.8/CBDT to consider and dispose of the representations made by the petitioner regarding Section 194-O of the Income Tax Act within six weeks. The court instructed a reasoned order addressing the petitioner's contentions to be passed, with communication of the decision within one week. The petitioner was required to continue depositing TDS in the interim without default. The judgment highlighted the need to address practical challenges faced by e-commerce operators in tax compliance, granting the petitioner liberty to seek further relief if dissatisfied with the decision on their representations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to newly inserted provision of Section 194-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Inaction by respondent No.8/CBDT in disposing of representations made by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the newly inserted provision of Section 194-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires e-commerce operators to deduct and deposit TDS on sale consideration received from e-commerce participants. The petitioner seeks a declaration that they are not obligated to deduct tax in cases where the sale does not occur through their platform or where payment is not made to them. The representations made by the petitioner highlight practical challenges faced in complying with this provision, such as the inability to deduct TDS when the sales consideration is not routed through the petitioner and the lack of a mechanism to enforce TDS deduction on behalf of buyers.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.8/CBDT in not disposing of their representations seeking redressal of grievances related to Section 194-O. The court directs respondent No.8/CBDT to consider and dispose of the representations within six weeks, passing a reasoned order after addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner. The respondent is also instructed to communicate the decision within one week after disposal. In the interim, the petitioner is required to continue depositing TDS without being treated as in default. The petitioner is granted liberty to seek further relief if aggrieved by the decision on their representations.

The court sets deadlines for filing affidavits and schedules the matter for final hearing. Both parties are directed to prepare short written notes of argument for the hearing. The judgment emphasizes the importance of addressing the practical challenges faced by e-commerce operators in complying with tax deduction requirements and ensures a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and seek appropriate relief.

---