Thomas Varkey Vs. Union of India

Thomas Varkey vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 10, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/918051

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/918051
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: C.K.Abdul Rehim,J.
Decided On: Feb 10, 2011
Case Number: WP(C).NOs.4309,4310,4311,4312 & 4313 of 2011
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Direct Taxation

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation
Acts & sections: The Income Tax Act - Section 194; The Kerala Land Acquisition Rules 1990 - Rules 10(a), 12(5)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thomas Varkey

Advocate SRI.S.M.PREM, Adv.

Respondent

Union of India

Legal References

Acts: The Income Tax Act - Section 194; The Kerala Land Acquisition Rules 1990 - Rules 10(a), 12(5)
Reported In: ILR2011(1)Ker218

Excerpt

.....properties belonging to them were notified for acquisition for a public purpose, the land in question were not acquired through the normal procedure contemplated under the kerala land acquisition act. on the other hand, the land were acquired on executing agreement in form 10(a) as per rule 12(5) of the kerala land acquisition rules 1990. contention of the petitioner is that compulsory deduction of income tax was not warranted in such cases because the purchase was made through negotiations and it was not acquired through normal process of law as contemplated under the land acquisition act 1894. 2. learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a division bench decision of this court in wa.no.2243/2008 dated 8.1.2009, in order to canvass the above position. 3. however it is noticed that tax deductions were already effected and the petitioners have filed returns claiming refund. since the amount of deduction has already been transferred to the income tax department by the land acquisition authorities, it is for the assessing authority concerned to consider whether the amount is liable for refunded or not. learned counsel submits that the assessing authority is bound by the division bench decision of this court referred above and the petitioners are entitled for full refund of the amount. since the matter is now pending consideration before the assessing authority, i am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if that authority is directed to consider and to take a decision on an early basis. 4. under the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the assessing authority concerned to process the returns and to take appropriate steps to issue intimations to the petitioners if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Full Judgment

1. All these writ petitions are filed challenging the deductions of income tax made, under section 194 (LA) of the Income Tax Act. According to the petitioners, eventhough properties belonging to them were notified for acquisition for a public purpose, the land in question were not acquired through the normal procedure contemplated under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, the land were acquired on executing agreement in Form 10(a) as per Rule 12(5) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules 1990. Contention of the petitioner is that compulsory deduction of income tax was not warranted in such cases because the purchase was made through negotiations and it was not acquired through normal process of law as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in WA.No.2243/2008 dated 8.1.2009, in order to canvass the above position.

3. However it is noticed that tax deductions were already effected and the petitioners have filed returns claiming refund. Since the amount of deduction has already been transferred to the Income Tax Department by the Land Acquisition authorities, it is for the assessing authority concerned to consider whether the amount is liable for refunded or not. Learned counsel submits that the assessing authority is bound by the Division Bench decision of this court referred above and the petitioners are entitled for full refund of the amount. Since the matter is now pending consideration before the assessing authority, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if that authority is directed to consider and to take a decision on an early basis.

4. Under the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the assessing authority concerned to process the returns and to take appropriate steps to issue intimations to the petitioners if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2011 Same Parties Thomas Varkey vs Union of India Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge C.K.Abdul Rehim,J. Acts & Sections The Income Tax Act - Section 194; The Kerala Land Acquisition...