2019 (1) TMI 541 - HC - Income Tax

Default u/s 201 - TDS not been deposited with the taxation authorities - Held that - According to the learned State counsel, the amount payable to the petitioner is ₹ 92,560/- and not ₹ 1,00,750/-, as claimed by the petitioner due to calculation error. It was stated that the amount of ₹ 92,620/- (Rs. 60 in excess), has since been released to the petitioner. Further, the TDS on account of income tax has also been deposited with the concerned authorities and certificates in that regard have been issued to the petitioner. As urged that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for release of payments with interest and compliance with Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, demanding the release of payments totaling &8377;1,00,750 along with interest of 12% per annum. The petitioner alleged that the respondents unlawfully withheld the sanctioned payments related to construction tenders and failed to deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as required by Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner claimed that despite multiple reminders, the respondents did not take any action on the matter.

The petitioner was awarded three tenders for construction projects by respondent No.2, who deducted TDS for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 but allegedly did not remit the deducted amounts to the tax authorities. The petitioner contended that the TDS amount was not deposited in accordance with the law.

In response to the notice of motion, the respondents submitted an affidavit stating that all taxes deducted from the petitioner had been deposited with the appropriate authorities. Detailed information regarding the tax deposits for the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15 was provided, including challan numbers, dates, and amounts deposited. Additionally, the respondents highlighted that the outstanding amount due to the petitioner was &8377;92,620, not &8377;1,00,750 as claimed, due to a calculation error. They confirmed that the excess amount had been released to the petitioner, and the TDS for income tax had been duly deposited, with certificates issued to the petitioner as proof.

Considering the submissions made by the respondents and the fact that the petitioner had already received the excess amount and the TDS had been deposited as per the law, the court found the writ petition to be infructuous. Consequently, the court ordered the petition to be disposed of accordingly.