Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandra Mohan vs Raj. State Finance Corpn. & Anr on 7 March, 2017
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8285 / 2016
Chandra Mohan S/o Brij Mohan, aged about 61 years, by caste
Singhal, Resident of 5/143, R.H.C. Colony, Goverdhan Vilas, Tehsil
Girwa, District-Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Finance Corporation, Through its Director
General Manager, Head Office at Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. Branch Manager, Rajasthan State Finance Corporation,
Branch Office S-1 MIA, Madri, Tehsil-Girwa, District-Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S.Rathore
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order 07/03/2017
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent to give his PAN number to the Department of Income Tax in respect of the tax deducted at source instead of the PAN number of the proprietor of the proprietorship concern M/s. Prakash Mineral and Chemical Industry.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though M/s. Prakash Mineral and Chemical Industry is a proprietorship concern of his brother Shri Surya Prakash Singhal but he was looking after the affairs of the business concern as power of attorney holder and as a matter of fact, an agreement to sale was also executed in his favour by his brother on 23.6.90. Learned (2 of 2) [CW-8285/2016] counsel submitted that after auction of the assets of the industry, the cheque of surplus amount a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was handed over by the RFC to the petitioner, however, instead of submitting the PAN number of the petitioner in respect of the tax deducted, the PAN number of his brother is given and thus, the action of the respondent RFC is ex facie arbitrary.
3. Admittedly, there exists no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent RFC. The assets of the industrial unit was auctioned by the RFC and thereafter, the cheque of the surplus amount was issued in the name of the industrial unit which might have been received by the petitioner as power of attorney holder but the same does not make him entitle to claim credit of the tax deducted at source, if any. To say the least, as a power of attorney holder, the claim as raised by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived.
4. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.
(SANGEET LODHA)J. Aditya/