‘Jagannath Temple Management Committee’ isn’t a person to hold it liable for TCS while leasing out its quarries

The authority established under the Central, State or Provincial Act isn’t liable for collection of tax on leasing out of the quarry

Facts:

In the instant case the AO(TDS) passed the order under section 206C(6) holding that 'Shree Jagannath Temple Office' was liable to collect TCS from lessee under section 206C(1C) on leasing out quarries. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal.

The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:

1) The term 'person' has not been defined under section 206C, even though in the Explanation to section 206C various other terms have been defined such as 'buyer' and the 'seller';

2) The 'seller' has been defined for the purpose of section 206C(1) but the language of section 206C(1C) is different and it only makes liable every person, who grants lease;

3) From the definition of the word 'person' under section 2(31) it is apparent that an authority established under Central, State or Provincial Act for managing affairs of the temple cannot be regarded to be a 'person';

4) Due to specific definition of the seller and the language of section 206C(1) the provision for collection of tax will apply even to an authority established by or under the Central, State or Provincial Act, yet such authority was not liable for collection of tax on leasing out the quarry under section 206C(1C);

5) Therefore, Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee couldn’t be held liable under section 206C(6) to pay the tax to the credit of the Central Government. Thus, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was to be quashed - SHREE JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE V. ACIT (2013) 39 taxman 71 (Cuttack - Trib.)