ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who were granted L 14 and L 14A licences by the Excise Department of the State of Punjab for the year 1999 2000, have prayed for quashing of the notices dt. 22nd Jan., 2000, issued by the Asstt. Excise and Taxation CIT, Ropar (respondent No. 3) for deposit of IT at source under S. 206C of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the 1961 Act").

(2.) THE question as to whether holders of L 14 or L 14A licence issued under the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, fall within the meaning of the term "buyer" under S. 206C of the 1961 Act and whether the Excise Department is required to collect 10 per cent of the licence fee as IT from such licensees is no longer res integra and must be treated as conclusively decided against the Revenue in view of the following decisions of this Court : (i) K.K. Mittal & Co. vs. Union of India (1990) 90 CTR (P&H) 50 : (1991) 187 ITR 208 (P&H) : TC 5R.622, 19R.1017; (ii) K. K. Mittal & Co. vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (P&H) 427 : (1993) 203 ITR 201 (P&H) : TC 5PS.51, TC S5.565, (iii) Satya Pal Amrik Singh & Co. vs. Union of India (1997) 142 CTR (P&H) 332 : (1997) 228 ITR 653 ; (iv) C.W.P. No. 15583 of 1999 Naresh Kumar & Co. vs. Union of India (2000) 160 CTR (P&H) 81 : (2000) 243 ITR 760 (P&H) decided on 22nd Feb., 2000 ; and (v) C. W. P. No. 681 of 2000 Chander Bhan and Co. vs. Union of India (2000) 163 CTR (P&H) 236 : (2001) 247 ITR 553 (P&H), decided on 2nd June, 2000.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 and 2 have filed short written statements to contest the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the orders of assessment (annexure R l) dt. 8th Dec., 1999, passed by the ITO, Rupnagar, have not been challenged by the petitioners, but after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the petitioners cannot be denied relief on the ground that they have not challenged the orders of assessment passed against respondent No. 3. As far as they are concerned, a declaration by the Court that no tax can be collected from them at source under S. 206C of the 1961 Act would be sufficient and if respondent No. 3 feels aggrieved by the orders of assessment, he may challenge the same by filing appeal under the Act or by availing of other appropriate legal remedy. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. Notices annexure P l are declared illegal and quashed.