TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the constitutional validity of the said provision has been upheld. The other prayer sought for by the petitioner is for a declaration that the orders of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents dated 26^th September, 1994 and 25^th February, 1994are illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. There are some other consequential reliefs which need not be referred to. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of country liquor which is one of its business apart from manufacture of sugar. Section 206-C as it now stands as substituted by the Finance Act, 1992 was introduced with effect from 1^st April, 1992. The effect of the Section is that the seller of alcoholic liquor and other goods described in the schedule has to collect from the buyer a sum equa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll at the time, during the period beginning on the 1^st day of June 2003 and ending on the day immediately preceding the date on which the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 comes into force, of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the account of the buyer or of receipt of such amount from the said buyer in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified in column (2) of the Table as it stood immediately before the 1^st day of June, 2003, a sum equal to the percentage, specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, of such amount as income-tax in accordance with the provisions of this Section as they stood imme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Writ Petition the constitutional validity of Section 206-C. One of such petitions was Writ Petition No.1637 of 2003. Similarly, there were a large number of other petitions. By an order dated 30^th June, 1993 while granting Rule, interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (4) of the said petition. The effect of the interim relief had an effect on implementation of the provisions contained in Section 206-C. There was further direction to Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 then not to collect tax at source from the petitioners until further orders of this Court. According to the petitioner he was a respondent in that petition. By order dated October 11, 1993, the learned Bench of this Court sitting at Nagpur, in the various petitions pending ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....those assesses were spread over different geographical regions and was not possible to know what orders had been specifically passed in their cases. 7. None appears for the respondent Department at the time of hearing. 8. The short question that we are called upon to consider is whether considering the interim relief granted by this Court whereby the petitioner herein was restrained from collecting the tax from the purchasers, would invite the provisions of Section 206C of the Act. 9. We have earlier reproduced the relevant provisions of Section 206C. It may also be noted at this stage that the constitutional validity of Section 206-C(6) is no longer in issue in this petition. Under Section 206C(1) every person, being a seller, had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en if he could collect the tax. The expression "responsible", therefore, has to be read in the context of statutory duty to collect which the petitioner was bound to perform by virtue of the provisions. The order of the Court would be binding and had to be complied with. The issue of collection would arise at the point of sale. The interim order was a blanket order of restriction from collecting. The question of the petitioner, therefore, collecting the tax and, therefore, responsible would not arise. There was a bar on him to collect the tax. If he could not collect the tax at the point of time of order, the question of he depositing the sum under sub-section (3) or of Section 206C would not arise till such period the disability is disappe....