Allowed

S.Mohanakumar v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Sept 2016WP(C)/12189/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondent authorities to release land acquisition compensation to petitioners without deducting any income tax under Section 194-LA, relying on Section 96 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authority to release compensation payable under the 2013 Act without deducting any tax under Section 194-LA.

S.Mohanakumar Vs the District Collector — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12189 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. S.MOHANAKUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, SURABHI BHAVAN,PUNNAMOODU, PALLICHAL(PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020.

¶8

2. SWAYAMPRABHA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.SARADA, SURABHI BHAVAN, PUNNAMOODU,

¶9

PALLICHAL(PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD

¶11

SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN

¶12

SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶14

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KODAPPANAKKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005.

¶15

2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), KARAMANA-KALIYIKKAVILA SPL.UNIT, COLLECTORATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005.

¶16

3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.SHAMSUDEEN R3 BY ADV. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM

¶18

ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

WP(C).No. 12189 of 2016 (W)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT:P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT JOINTLY TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶25

EXT:P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 17.04.2015 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONERS AGREEING FOR THE RATE OF RS.12,00,000/FOR THE LAND.

¶26

EXT:P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1422 OF 2015.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶28

ANNEXURE R3(A): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9TH SEPTEMBER 2015 IN W.P(C).NO. 21478/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.12189 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 6^th day of September 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation without deducting any tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue is already covered by judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12194 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as

¶36

under:

¶37

“3. It is seen that the very same issue has been considered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1536 of 2016, whereby the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12484 of 2016 and connected cases has been upheld. The learned Division Bench in the judgment dated 08.08.2016 in W.A. No. 1536 of 2016 has held thus:

¶38

“3. We find that the judgment of the learned single Judge is just and proper in as much as Section 96 of the Act, 2013 clearly discloses that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under Section 46.

¶39

W.P.C.No.12189/2016

¶40

¶41

It is not in dispute that Section 46 of the Act, 2013 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is amply clear that as per Section 96 of the Act, 2013, exemption is provided for levying income tax and stamp duty. In an identical case, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1422 of 2015 has already concluded that income tax is not liable to be deducted from the compensation payable to similarly placed persons. The learned single Judge, following the dictum laid down in W.A. No. 1422 of 2015 and observing the provisions of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, has allowed the writ petitions directing the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner, without deducting any amount towards income tax or stamp duty.”

¶42

In the light of the above, the legal position now stands clarified that in view of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, the deduction towards income tax cannot be made from the compensation payable to the land owners. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying the position as above and directing that the compensation be disbursed to the petitioners without deducting any amount towards income tax.”

¶43

W.P.C.No.12189/2016

¶44

¶45

Having regard to the aforesaid finding, there will be a direction to the respondent authority to release the amount paid under the 2013, Act, without deducting any tax under Section 194-LA.

¶46

(sd/-)

¶47

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶48

jsr

S.Mohanakumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mohanakumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aparna M.S. Vs Sathikumar

T.M.Sulekha Eassa Vs P.K.Nazar

M/S.Silk Park Vs the Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore

Vinu T.P. Vs Indusind Bank

M.R.Ravikumar Vs the District Collector

M.R.Madhavan Nair Vs the District Collector