Disposed

Santhoshkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2016WP(C)/3523/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging tax deduction at source from land acquisition compensation. Relying on an existing interim order, it directed the respondents to provide TDS details and directed the petitioner to seek a refund from the Income Tax Commissioner if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Respondent 2 to provide TDS details; Petitioner to seek refund from Respondent 3.

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala — 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 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3523 of 2014 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SANTHOSHKUMAR. T.C.,

¶8

S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MATHUR JUNCTION, EROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA-682 306, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.

¶9

2. RAJESH P.P., S/O. PURANTHARAN, VELIYILPARAMBIL, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBIL, MATHUR JUNCTION, EROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA-682 306, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BABU,

¶11

SMT.N.SUDHA, SRI.K.S.GOPI, SRI.BABU SHANKAR, SRI.VIPIN VISWAN, SRI.K.V.WINSTON.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30.

¶14

2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, KARSHAKA ROAD, NAKHATHRA BUILDING, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, PIN-682 020.

¶15

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T. R3 BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR SC, ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 3523 of 2014 (M)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF NOTICE NO. 877/12 DATED 15-05-2013 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE IN L.A.C.NO. 21/13 SERVED ON THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT IN LAC NO. 8/13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN LAC NO. 9/13.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN LAC NO. 21/13.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2008 (4) KLT 782.

¶29

EXHIBIT P8- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.2063/2014.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.3523 of 2014

¶35

Dated this the 13^th day of July 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

This writ petition is filed inter alia challenging the action of the 2^nd respondent in deducting tax from the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner. Though a contention had been urged that the amount has to be disbursed without deduction of tax in terms of Sections 194 LA or 194 IA of the Income Tax Act, an interim order has been passed by this Court on 04/02/2014 permitting respondents 1 and 2 to retain 10% of the award/agreed amount and to disburse the balance to the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent was also directed to remit 10% of the amount so deducted, to the 3^rd respondent.

¶38

The issue related to the question whether the amount of compensation was paid after passing the award or not. In so far as tax had already been deducted, I do not think that there is any necessity to consider the said issue, at this point of time.

¶39

Taking into consideration the fact that an interim order had already been passed, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶40

W.P.C.No.3523/2014

¶41

¶42

i) The 2^nd respondent shall provide the petitioner with necessary details regarding collection of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by issuing the TDS certificate and also the particulars regarding deposit of amount before the 3^rd respondent.

¶43

ii) That the petitioner shall file appropriate application/return before the 3^rd respondent and seek for refund of the amount deducted by the 2^nd respondent as TDS, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, which shall be considered and disposed by the 3^rd respondent, in accordance with law.

¶44

(sd/-)

¶45

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶46

jsr

Santhoshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhoshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komalam Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Pathummakkutty. M. Vs Senior Superintendent

C.Najeeb Vs K.S.E.B

Michael M.Joseph Vs Anilkumar

C.Sasidharan Pillai Vs Kseb

India Telecom Infra Ltd. Vs Kseb