2017 (1) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Petitioner : Mr.N.Sriprakash For the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh ORDER 1. The captioned writ petitions assail three (3) separate orders passed by respondent No.1. 1.1. In W.P.No.40936 of 2016, the order dated 03.11.2016, is assailed; in W.P.No.40937 of 2016, the order assailed is also dated 03.11.2016; and lastly, in W.P.No.40938 of 2016, the order assailed is dated 26.10.2016. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2015-2016 26.10.2016 Rs.4,01,69,630/- Rs.91,26,570/-   4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 misdirected himself, both in law and on facts, in passing the impugned orders, particularly, for the following reasons : (i) Respondent No.1 has proceeded on the basis that, since, tax at source was deducted by Chennai Metro Rail Limited (in short CMRL ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t No.1. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Section 13 of the Act. (iii) The only person, who would be liable for the alleged failure in short collection of withholding tax would be CMRL and not the petitioner. (iv) Since, the allegation is that the petitioner has been charged tax at a rate lower than the rate at which, it should have been charged, respondent No.1 could have inv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....counsel for the respondents that the facts stated therein will have to be enquired into, which is, whether or not the petitioner, firstly, declared the entire taxable turnover, and thereafter, paid the entire tax, as contended by it. 5.1. Mr.Venkatesh, says that, if, tax is paid, as contended, then, obviously, no tax liability would lie on the petitioner. It is in this context that the learned ....