ORDER

M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 11th October, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-respondent No. 1. By the impugned order, the certificate dated 24th May, 2017 issued for lower deduction of tax at 0.39 per cent for the period 22nd May, 2017 to 31st March, 2018 under section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is cancelled.

2. This petition was originally filed on 10th October, 2017 seeking a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Revenue from proceeding further with Show Cause Notice dated 16th and 30th August, 2017 proposing to cancel the Certificate dated 24th May, 2017. Thereafter, the petition was amended on 14th November, 2018 consequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 11th October, 2017 cancelling the Certificate dated 24th May, 2017. The amendment made consequent to order dated 6th November, 2017, contained specific averment in paragraphs 10B and 10D of the petition as under :"

10B ...... No opportunity of hearing whatsoever was granted to the petitioner in advance of such purported cancellation of the certificate issued under Section 197", and

"10D On 3rd November, 2007, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, without any opportunity of hearing being granted ......."

3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue stated that the above averment is false and misleading. In support, he invited our attention to the affidavit dated 5th December, 2017 of Mr. N. Ashokbabu, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1 herein) to which is annexed an order sheet noting dated 12th September, 2017 signed by the representatives of the petitioner as evidence of having attended the hearing. Thus, he submits that the petition be dismissed on the above account.

4. In response, Mr. Mistri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invites our attention to the affidavit dated 11th December, 2017 of Mr. Rajiv Mahopatra, the Constituted Attorney of the petitioner. In particular, he points out therefrom that on receipt of the notice proposing cancellation of Certificate dated 24th May, 2017, the petitioner filed a reply dated 7th September, 2017. In its reply, the petitioner made submission both on jurisdiction and on merits. Further, the above reply specifically asked for a hearing to be given first on jurisdiction and only thereafter, if not convinced, to give a further hearing on merits. The affidavit further records that on 11th September, 2017, the petitioner''s representative did attend the office of respondent No. 1 and reiterated the submissions made in the letter dated 7th September, 2017. At which time, i.e. on 11th September, 2017 as the affidavit in terms records that the petitioner''s authorized representative was informed by the respondent No. 1 that he will consult with the Additional Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and the hearing was inconclusive.

5. Mr. Mistri, further states that in the affidavit dated 8th January, 2018 filed by respondent No. 1 in response to affidavit dated 11th December, 2017, the above facts of inconclusive hearing has not been disputed. In the above context, he submits that even the impugned order dated 11th October, 2011 does not record a grant of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is more a case of inarticulate/inappropriate drafting and there was never any intent on the part of the petitioner to secure any undue advantage. At the highest, it is submitted that it is a drafting error done by the Advocate for which the petitioner should not be penalized. Mr. Mistri states that an apology is offered by the advocates. At the conclusion of his submission, we informed Mr. Mistri that we are not inclined to entertain this petition. To this Mr. Mistri prayed that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.

6. It is a settled position in law that any party wh