Allowed

N.M.Ahammed v. District Collector Kasaragod

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016WP(C)/34379/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court discharged mandates directing respondent authorities to disburse the full land acquisition compensation to the petitioners. The court clarified the legal position under Section 96 of the Act, 2013, ruling that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied as the specific exemption provision applies to pending land acquisition awards.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner without deducting any amount towards income tax or stamp duty.

N.M.Ahammed Vs District Collector Kasaragod — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34379 of 2016 (V) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.M.AHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE MAMMUNHI, AVIKKARA, BALLA VILLAGE, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD-671121.

¶11

2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARAGOD 671 121.

¶12

3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018.

¶13

R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN R3 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 34379 of 2016 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.9.2016 P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.10.2016 P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.5.2016 IN WP 124485/2016 P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.2016 IN WA 1528/2016

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.34379 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 26^th day of October 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶29

“To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to disburse the whole land acquisition compensation as due to the petitioners without any deduction of Income Tax.”

¶30

The issue covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.12194/2016 and connected cases wherein the Division Bench held as under:

¶31

“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:

¶32

W.P.C.No.34379/2016

¶33

¶34

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. 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

¶35

W.P.C.No.34379/2016

¶36

¶37

petitions directing the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner, without deducting any amount towards income tax or stamp duty.”

¶38

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.”

¶39

Having regard to the aforesaid, there will be a direction

¶40

to the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner without deducting any amount towards income tax.

¶41

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

(sd/-)

¶43

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶44

jsr

N.M.Ahammed v. District Collector Kasaragod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.M.Ahammed v. District Collector Kasaragod

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

P.a.Abraham Vs the District Collector

Ajesh V.V Vs the University Grants Commission

Givin C Boban Vs Authorised Officer

Sachin Saji Vs Vice Chancellor, Kerala University of Health Science

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Narayanan K

K.Ramabhadran Vs State of Kerala