TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the liquor vendors who obtained retail vending rights by auction and thereafter procured arrack under the Karnataka excise regime were "buyers" within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to attract tax collection at source. (ii) Whether the orders passed under Section 206C(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were sustainable without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Issue (i): Whether the liquor vendors who obtained retail vending rights by auction and thereafter procured arrack under the Karnataka excise regime were "buyers" within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to attract tax collection at source.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder showed that the auction was only for conferral of the right to retail vend liquor, while the actual procurement of arrack took place later on the strength of permits and on payment of issue price fixed by the Excise Commissioner. The Explanation to Section 206C excluded a buyer where the goods were not obtained by auction and the sale price was fixed by or under a State Act. The Court held that these were conjunctive conditions and both were satisfied here: the goods were not obtained by auction, and the retail sale price was statutorily controlled within a fixed range. Accordingly, the contractors did not answer the statutory definition of "buyer".
Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee. Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held inapplicable to the appellant in respect of the excise contractors.
Issue (ii): Whether the orders passed under Section 206C(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were sustainable without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Analysis: Although Section 206C(6) did not expressly provide for notice and hearing, the Court treated the order as one carrying adverse civil consequences. On that footing, the requirements of natural justice were read into the provision, and the assessee was held entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including a personal hearing, before any prejudicial order was made.
Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee. The impugned orders under Section 206C(6) could not be sustained without compliance with natural justice.
Final Conclusion: The impugned High Court orders and the underlying tax collection demands were set aside, and the challenge to tax collection at source in respect of these excise contractors succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: For Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to apply, the person must fall within the statutory definition of "buyer"; where the transaction is only a grant of retail vending rights and the actual goods are not obtained by auction, with the sale price fixed under a State law, tax collection at source is not attracted. A prejudicial order under the provision also requires compliance with natural justice.
TaxTMI 
