9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 6, the Asset Manager, ONGC Ltd., Tripura Asset, was informed that it came to the notice of him that in gross violation of the provisions of section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, no deduction of tax at source is being made in respect of the employees who are members of the scheduled tribe posted in the State of Tripura even though no certificate authorizing non-deduction/lower deduction as per the Income-tax Act has been issued from their end. Such action is violative of the provisions of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act") and, consequent upon, respondent No. 6 was requested to send the list of the scheduled tribe employees who are working under the control of respondent No. 6 along with their present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the apex court held that a classification of the Government servants for exemption in terms of section 10(26) is violative of article 14 and the Government servants or the employees of the "State" (within the meaning of article 12) lose the benefit on the mere incident of his being posted out of his place of origin, but within the areas specified under section 10(26) when they are entitled to the benefit of the said section if by an incident he is posted in the same area of his origin. Such an interpretation, it is held, which is dependent upon pure "accident" and exigencies of the service, would lead to wholly arbitrary results and undesirable consequences and ultimately allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein holding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel submits that admittedly, all the petitioners belonging to the scheduled tribe community are at present working under the Tripura Asset of the ONGC Ltd. and as a result of the impugned letters, they have apprehension that the employer, ONGC Ltd., would deduct income-tax from their salary violating the provisions of section 10(26) of the Act and, thus, they have filed the instant writ petition for quashing the impugned letters so that the respondent-Revenue cannot ask the employer-ONGC Ltd. to deduct any tax from their salary. On query, Mr. Chakraborty has informed us that the employer-ONGC Ltd. have not deducted income-tax from their salary nor has the respondent-employer been directed by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 192 of the Act and intend to continue to do so in future as well, and their action may not be considered to be in contravention of the provisions of section 192 of the Act. Mr. Biswas, learned Assistant SG at the very outset submits that the instant writ petition is a premature one as the income-tax authority, i.e., respondent No. 4, at no point time, asked the respondent-employer to deduct any income-tax from the salary of the petitioners at source, rather the respondent-Revenue asked for certain information to take its decision. He further submits that the person who wants to get the benefit of section 10(26), he has to prove that he is a member of the scheduled tribe named and figured in the scheduled tribe list. He further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is correct, then obviously the remaining petitioners shall also get the same benefit subject to they are similarly situated, We have also noted that even on apprehension, a writ petition can be filed if either the Constitutional right or the legal rights are going to be affected and the statutory alternative remedy is not available. We have also considered the case of Pradip Kumar Taye (supra). According to us, the facts of that case and the facts involved in the instant case are totally different and it would not be proper on our part to express any opinion regarding the decision in Pradip Kumar Taye (supra). As and when an opportunity would come, obviously we would answer to the question as to whether a person, admittedly a schedule tribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividend or interest on securities." In U. P. Public Service Commission v. Sanjay Kumar Singh, AIR 2003 SC 3626, the apex court has considered a question as to whether a tribe notified in relation to a particular State if migrated to another State wherein such tribe is not specified can get the benefit of reservation as scheduled tribe candidate and taking note of its earlier decision in State of Maharashtra v. Union of India [1994] 5 SCC 244 as well as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Veena [2001] 6 SCC 571 and answered the question in the negative, though considering the peculiar circumstances of that case, the apex court held that "the ends of justice would be met if the appellants are directed to consider the case of the respondent i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
