IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF JULY 2020

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WP NO 146671 OF 2020 (T-IT)

BETWEEN

DRN. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,

110 NAYAK HOUSE,

GOKUL ROAD,

DOLLARS COLONY,

HUBBALLI-580030

DIST : DHARWAD

REPRESENTED BY

ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

DINESH

S/O. RAMACHANDRA NAYAK

AGE : 53 YEARS,

OCC : MANAGING DIRECTOR,

R/O : NO.18,

YASHODAN,

ASHOK NAGAR,

VIJAY NAGAR,

HUBBALLI-580032,

DIST : DHARWAD

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT, ADV.)

AND

2

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CPC BENGALURU

BENGALURU-560001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERR

OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)

CIRCLE 16(2),

BANGALORE

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE

NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE BEARING COMMUNICATION

REFERENCE

NO.CPC/1718/C94/1886051513

DATED:23.07.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1

DIRECTING THE PETITIONER COMPANY TO REMIT THE

ALLEGED

OUTSTANDING

TDS

AMOUNT

AS

PER

ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

3

ORDER

The top noted writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned demand

notice bearing Communication Reference No.CPC/1718/

C94/1886051513 dated:23.07.2019 passed by the 1^st

respondent.

2.

Sri.

Y.V.Raviraj,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit to this Court that

the present writ petition is not maintainable as the

petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal under Section

246A of the Income Tax Act.

3.

He would also submit to this Court that unless

petitioner9s exhaust remedy of appeal he has no locus

standi to question the demand notice and this Court cannot

examine and review the demand notice which is not

permissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India.

4

4.

To this submission, counsel for the petitioner

would request this Court to dispose of the writ petition

reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his

grievance before the competent forum.

5.

Having taken note of the submissions made by

learned counsel for the respondents and the petitioner, this

Court is of the view that the present writ petition

questioning the demand notice cannot be examined at this

stage.

6.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is

disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach

competent authority in accordance with law.

SD/-

JUDGE

Vb/-