AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (1) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....setting aside the said award whereupon rule nisi was issued and operation of the said award was stayed. By judgment and order dated September 16, 1976, Amiya Kumar Mukherjee J. discharged the rule nisi. The respondent company, thereafter, filed an appeal against the said order dated September 16, 1976, and the said appeal was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated November 30, 1979. The respondent company, thereafter, filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India in January, 1980. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent company and the petitioner entered into a compromise on the basis whereof the Supreme Court passed the following order on February 14, 1980. "CONSENT TERMS Special Leave granted, Appeal is disposed of in the following terms: 1. Respondent No. 2, Shri Saroj Kumar Maheswari, having categorically intimated his resignation from the service of the appellant with effect from today, the appellant do pay to respondent No. 2, Saroj Kumar Maheswari, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) in full and final settlement of all his claims, in respect of wages, provident fund, gratuity and all other em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed an application under art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, and obtained an interim order on January 12, 1984. The said writ application (Matter No. 7 of 1984) came up for final hearing before Padma Khastgir J. on July 27, 1984. The learned judge in disposing the said writ application has, inter alia, held as follows: "The employer and the employee entered into an agreement where the employee gave up all his claims in dispute and agreed to the terms of settlement and the figure arrived at was Rs. 1,50,000 towards the dues arising out of various claims. Under the circumstances, whatever amount had been awarded by the Supreme Court is payable to him without deduction. As a result, the company was not entitled to deduct income-tax at source. To pass an order which would be beneficial for both the company and Mr. Maheswari, this court enquired from Dr. Mookerjee as to whether the company was agreeable to pay the entire amount under the Supreme Court order to Mr. Maheswari without deduction to which he submitted that the company had already deposited the amount with the income-tax a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is hands a sum of Rs. 67,200.40, from the respondent company in March, 1980, and a sum of Rs. 62,422 was received as refund from the Income-tax Department on August 9, 1983. The petitioner, therefore, received actually Rs. 1,29,622.40 in the aggregate leaving a balance of Rs. 20,377.60. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that the respondent company should not have deducted any tax from the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and should have paid the entire sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the petitioner without any deduction. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000 is not taxable at all in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra Datar [1961] 41 ITR 446. In that case, the Supreme Court held that in the execution of a decree passed in favour of an ex-employee, for compensation for wrongful termination of employment, arrears of salary, salary due for the period of notice, interest and costs, less the withdrawals on salary account, the substantial part of the decree representing compensation for wrongful termination of employment, it being difficult to predicate which part of the decree represented salary due, in the absence of a provision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has been kept on tenterhooks for the last nearly eight years, we direct the respondent to pay Rs. 2,000 as and by way of costs." It has been contended by Dr. Monotosh Mukherjee for the respondent company that the company under a bona fide impression deducted taxes at source from the sum of Rs. 1,50,000. He has submitted that the fact of getting the refund from the Income-tax Department was not disclosed before the court of the first instance nor before this court. Had it been disclosed before the court of the first instance, in that event, the order directing the Income-tax Department to make the refund would not have been passed. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. He has further submitted that the question of payment of interest does not arise as the facts in the case relied on by the petitioner are different. In any event, the petitioner can only ask for interest on the sum of Rs. 20,377.60 which has not yet been paid after adjustment of the amounts due to the company from the petitioner. We have considered the rival submissions. It is true that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact. The petitioner ought to have disclosed the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nasmuch as the Income-tax Department was not a party to the writ application filed by the respondent company. Unless there is a determination by the income-tax authorities that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 or any part thereof is not taxable at all, no question of refund of any amount out of the alleged tax paid to the Income-tax Department would arise. There must be some determination by the Income-tax Authority either upon the application of the respondent company who deducted the alleged tax at source from the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 or at the instance of the petitioner upon completion of the assessment inasmuch as tax deducted shall, for the purpose of computing the income of the petitioner, be deemed to be the income received. The learned judge also fell into an error in directing the Income-tax Department to pay interest. The said direction is also contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act. Under the circumstances mentioned in ss. 243 and 244 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Department is liable to pay interest on delayed refund. Unless there is any liability to refund which has been delayed, the question of payment of interest would not arise at all. On the facts and in the circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in not disclosing true and correct facts in the court below, we are not inclined to award any costs or compensatory costs to the petitioner. Having regard to the conduct of the parties, we are of the view that neither the petitioner shall be entitled to any costs nor the respondent company shall be entitled to deduct any sum on account of licence fee for occupation of the quarter or on account of electricity charges. The respondent-company is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 20,377.60 to the petitioner along with interest as directed by the order within four weeks from today. The proceedings impugned under art. 226 of the Constitution by the respondent-company would remain stayed for a period of five weeks. In the event the respondent-company makes payment as directed within the time specified above, the petitioner or the respondent-company or the appropriate authority shall make necessary petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, for filing of the case and upon such petition being made, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, shall dispose of the case accordingly. In default of payment of interest on th....