The District Collector, Kanyakumari District. Kanyakumari District v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai. Madurai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSEW.P.(MD)No.16161 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) P.Chithambara Vadivoo 1) The District Collector, Kanyakumari District. Kanyakumari District. Vs. ... Petitioner 2) The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai. Madurai. 3) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. Ward-I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4) The Block Development Officer, Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union, Rajakamangalam, Kanyakumari District. Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union, Rajakamangalam, Kanyakumari District. 5) The Additional Block Development Officer, Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union, Rajakamangalam, Kanyakumari District.... Respondents Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union, Rajakamangalam, Kanyakumari District.... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing thefourth respondent to submit the TDS returns to the third respondentfor the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 and to refund of Rs.12,662/- tothe petitioner, within a reasonable time as may be fixed by thisCourt by considering the petitioner's representation dated19.06.2020. For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Sathan Boopathy For R-1: Mr.C.Ramar, Additional Government Pleader. For RR 4 & 5: Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate ****** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Mr.C.Ramar, learned Additional Government Pleader acceptsnotice for the first respondent, Mr.G.Arjunan, learned GovernmentAdvocate accepts notice for the respondent Nos.4 & 5. By consent ofboth sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at thestage of admission itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking fora direction to the fourth respondent to submit the TDS returns tothe third respondent for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 and torefund Rs.12,662/- to the petitioner, within a reasonable time asmay be fixed by this Court by considering the petitioner'srepresentation dated 19.06.2020. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period2012-13 and 2013-14, he was awarded a Contract by the fourthrespondent. According to him, after completion of the Contract, thefourth respondent has paid the contract amount after deductingRs.12,662/- towards tax. However, according to the petitioner, thefourth respondent has not submitted the e-filing with the Income TaxDepartment. The petitioner has made a request to the fourthrespondent calling upon him to submit his e-filing before the IncomeTax Department for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14. But till date,according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has not submittedthe e-filing with the Income Tax Department for the said years. 4. The petitioner has submitted a petition to the firstrespondent on 21.11.2014 calling upon him to take necessary actionagainst the fourth respondent for not submitting the e-filing beforethe Income Tax Department for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and hadalso sought for the refund of an amount of Rs.12,662/- deducted bythe fourth respondent from the petitioner's bills towards the incometax. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that a detailedrepresentation was given by him on 19.06.2020 calling upon them totake action against the fourth respondent. According to him, tilldate, the said representation has not been considered by therespondents. In such circumstances, this writ petition has beenfiled. 6. The relief sought for by the petitioner is an innocuousrelief. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if therelief sought for by the petitioner is granted by this Court. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that a detailedrepresentation was given by him on 19.06.2020 calling upon them totake action against the fourth respondent. According to him, tilldate, the said representation has not been considered by therespondents. In such circumstances, this writ petition has beenfiled. 6. The relief sought for by the petitioner is an innocuousrelief. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if therelief sought for by the petitioner is granted by this Court. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondentneither submitted e-filing with the Income Tax Department for theperiod 2012-13 and 2013-14 nor had the fourth respondent refundedthe sum of Rs.12,662/- to the petitioner for the wrongful deductionhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of income tax under the bills raised by the petitioner, in respectof the Contract performed by him on behalf of the fourth respondentfor the said period. The petitioner lodged a complaint with thefirst respondent on 24.11.2014 calling upon him to take necessarylegal action against the fourth respondent for not submitting the e-filing with the Income Tax Department for the period 2012-13 and2013-14. The petitioner has also given a representation on19.06.2020 calling upon the first respondent to take legal actionagainst the fourth respondent for not submitting the e-filing beforethe Income Tax Department for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and inthe same representation, he had also sought for refund ofRs.12,662/- being the sum, which according to the petitioner, hasbeen wrongfully deducted from his bills. Admittedly, till date, thesaid representation has not been considered by the respondents. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the firstrespondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated19.06.2020 requesting him to take legal action against the fourthrespondent for not e-filing the tax returns for the period 2012-13and 2013-14 and if it is found that the sum of Rs.12,662/- waswrongfully deducted towards income tax from the petitioner's bills,the first respondent is directed to refund the said amount to thepetitioner and pass final orders on merits and in accordance withlaw within a period of eight(08) weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition standsdisposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. // True Copy // Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS-I) Sts / /2020Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized forofficial purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of theorder that is presented is the correct copy, shall bethe responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized forofficial purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of theorder that is presented is the correct copy, shall bethe responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To: 1) The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2) The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai.3) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.4) The Block Development Officer, Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union, Rajakamangalam, Kanyakumari District.5) The Additional Block Development Officer, Rajakamangalam Panchayat Union, Rajakamangalam, Kanyakumari District. +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-22201[F] dated 19/11/2020 ) Order made in18.11.2020 W.P.(MD)No.16161 of 2020 VB (26.11.2020) 4P 7C