Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Rai And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 June, 2011
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
CWP No. 10333 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10333 of 2011
Date of Decision: 2.6.2011
Kulwant Rai and others
....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioners.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of three petitions bearing CWP Nos. 10333, 10417 and 10481 of 2011 as identical relief has been claimed in all the aforesaid petitions on similar facts involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 10333 of 2011.
2. By way of instant petition, the petitioners seek writ of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents in deducting tax at source from the amount of compensation of the land acquired. The petitioners also seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.44,118/- along with interest which was deducted at source out of the compensation of the agricultural land CWP No. 10333 of 2011 -2- acquired by the respondents.
3. Briefly, the facts may be noticed:
The agricultural land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondents vide notification dated 7.7.2000. Against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners filed references before the Additional District Judge and the amount of compensation was enhanced. Respondents No.1 and 2 deposited the enhanced amount of compensation by deducting Rs.44,118/- as Tax at Source out of the total amount of enhanced compensation and interest paid thereon. According to the petitioners, no tax could be deducted under the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short, "the Act") out of the enhanced compensation paid for agricultural land acquired by the State. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. The relief claimed by the petitioners in all the petitions is that the respondents have made tax deduction at source from the amount of compensation of the acquired agricultural land which they were not authorized to do so and, therefore, the said amount be released to the petitioners along with interest.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance upon Annexure P-2, order dated 15.9.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 16549 of 2010 (Bikramjeet Sood v. State of Punjab and others) submitted that the petitioners have received the amount of enhanced compensation in respect of agricultural land on which no tax was payable. Therefore, the tax deducted as source by the Land Acquisition Officer while depositing the amount with the Additional CWP No. 10333 of 2011 -3- District Judge, Ambala was unsustainable and, thus, the petitioners are entitled to refund of the same.
7. A perusal of Annexure P-1 shows that the following amounts have been deducted at source on the principal amount of enhanced compensation as well as on the interest received on enhanced compensation in all the three writ petitions:-
Sr. No. CWP No. Amount deducted
1. 10333 of 2011 Rs.44,118/-
2. 10417 of 2011 Rs.11,69,007/-
3. 10481 of 2011 Rs.35,96,498/-
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute that in view of receipt of interest element on enhanced compensation, the same being taxable in the year of receipt, the petitioners were required to file return as tax was payable on the said amount. In such a situation, the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of filing the income tax return and getting the tax deducted at source adjusted against their tax liability. If any amount deducted at source is found to be in excess of the tax liability, the petitioners are entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
9. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source in accordance with law.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
June 2, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
gbs ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
CWP No. 10333 of 2011 -4-
CWP No. 10333 of 2011 -5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10417 of 2011 Date of Decision: 2.6.2011 Gurbachan Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The writ petition is disposed of.
For reasons, see the detailed order of even date recorded in CWP No. 10333 of 2011 (Kulwant Rai and others v. State of Haryana and others).
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
June 2, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
gbs ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
CWP No. 10333 of 2011 -6-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10481 of 2011 Date of Decision: 2.6.2011 Leela Wati and others ....Petitioners.
Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The writ petition is disposed of.
For reasons, see the detailed order of even date recorded in CWP No. 10333 of 2011 (Kulwant Rai and others v. State of Haryana and others).
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
June 2, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
gbs ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE