TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r annum within a stipulated time. 2. The respondent was working as a postal assistant at the Purulia Head Post Office. It was alleged that on three different dates in the month of August 2002, premature withdrawals of monthly income scheme account of the depositor amounting to Rs. 4,10,000/- and odd were effected at the post office. The amounts were remitted to the messenger of the depositor in cash instead of by an account payee cheque or a demand draft, which was a clear violation of the DG Posts Instruction No. 5-20/UP-06/2000-IND dated 29.08.2001 (the said Postal Instruction, for short) that was issued in compliance with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the depositor went before the learned District Consumer Redressal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent being a postal assistant, thus, could very well have issued sanction of withdrawals and closure of accounts. The said Postal Instruction categorically barred remission of any amount including principal or interest in cash if the same was equal to or more than Rs. 20,000/-. This was in consonance with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. The office order was widely circulated to all senior post master/post masters under the West Bengal Circular. Besides, Section 269T of the Income Tax Act also barred such transactions beyond a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The respondent could not take a plea of ignorance of law as the same was not permissible. In a similar case decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court reported in the Department of Post....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essenger in cash. Therefore, the respondent was not the disbursing authority. As was quite rightly held by the learned State Commission, it was the Assistant Post Master who was ultimately responsible for the disbursement. If the voucher for payment in cash was not signed by the Assistant Post Master, the respondent could not have made the payment. It was also true that once the Assistant Post Master signed the vouchers and sanctioned the payment, it was not open to the respondent to stop such payment. Therefore, no liability for any purported illegality in making such payment in cash could be attributed to the respondent. Although the respondent participated in the subsequent proceeding, yet the patent illegality in the same could always b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case are required to be assayed. The respondent was working as a postal assistant at the Purulia Head Post Office. The process of making payments at the post office comprised of the following steps. After an MIS pass book was presented to the counter, the signature was to be tallied by the ledger clerk. Thereafter, the Assistant Post Master signed the vouchers. Only then could the respondent pay any sum of money to the messenger or payee concerned in cash. Therefore, quite clearly the respondent was not the disbursing authority. If the voucher for payment in cash was not signed by the Assistant Post Master, the respondent could not have made the payment. Looking at it from the other angle, once the Assistant Post Master signed....