2018 (5) TMI 1735 - HC - Income Tax

Seeking compensation from the Income Tax Department - Loss of interest due to premature withdrawal of the FDRs and retention of money by the respondents - Writ petition u/s 226/227 - seeking directions to release of amount to the petitioner towards loss - Held that - Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the petition is disposed after directing respondent No.1 to take a decision on the letter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking writ for release of funds due to premature FDR withdrawal.
2. Dispute over funds deposited by developers for regularization of colonies.
3. Failure of respondents to take action on petitioner's requests for fund release.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Statutory Authority under Punjab Laws, sought a writ for the release of funds amounting to ?3.68 crores due to premature withdrawal of Fixed Deposits Receipts (FDRs) and retention of funds by the respondents. The petitioner received funds from developers for regularization of unauthorized colonies, which were deposited in Term Deposits with banks. Respondent No.2 issued an attachment order on these deposits, which was later set aside by the Court. Despite requests and reminders, the funds were not released, leading to the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner's role as a competent authority under the Punjab Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2013 involved receiving applications and funds for regularization of colonies. The funds were deposited in Term Deposits with banks, and an attachment order by respondent No.2 hindered the release of funds. Subsequent communications and actions by various respondents, including the issuance of a cheque to the wrong party and account attachment by the Income Tax Department, complicated the fund release process. The petitioner's repeated requests for fund release were met with delays and non-responsiveness, leading to the legal recourse.

3. The failure of respondents to act on the petitioner's requests for fund release, despite reminders and communications, prompted the High Court to intervene. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed respondent No.1 to decide on the fund release issue within three months, following a speaking order and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. This judicial directive aimed to resolve the dispute over the fund release in accordance with the law, ensuring a fair and timely decision on the matter.