Blanket writ directions on tax deduction from motor accident compensation refused; specific tribunal orders must be challenged individually.

The HC declined to issue blanket directions to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for uniform deduction of tax deducted at source from motor accident compensation. It held that its earlier ruling on tax deduction is binding on subordinate tribunals, but factual differences may arise in individual cases. Where a tribunal order is said to depart from binding precedent, the proper course is to challenge that specific order in accordance with law, rather than seek omnibus writ directions against all tribunals. The request for general directions was therefore rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies against individual adverse orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether a general direction could be issued to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to follow a uniform procedure for deduction of tax deducted at source, instead of requiring the petitioner to challenge individual tribunal orders.

Analysis: The Court noted that its earlier decision on tax deduction from motor accident compensation is binding on subordinate tribunals, but the facts of each case may differ. It held that it could not issue omnibus directions to all tribunals in the State in the abstract, and that where an individual tribunal order departs from the binding decision, the proper course is to challenge that particular order in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The request for general directions was declined, and the petitioner was left to pursue remedies against individual adverse orders.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, the Court will not issue blanket directions to all tribunals on facts that may vary from case to case when the appropriate course is to challenge the specific order alleged to be contrary to binding precedent.

---