1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 677 of 1995 National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India and another ..Petitioners vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India ..Respondents Ms.Aasifa Khan for petitioners Mr.Rafique Dada, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Snehal Paranjape and Mr.O.Mohandas i/b Little and Co. for L.I.C. Mr.B.M.Chaterjee i/b Mr.Suresh Kumar for Income Tax Department. Writ Petition No.522 of 1996 1 Federation of LIC Class I Officers Associations and another ..Petitioners vs. 1 Union of India and ors. ..Respondents Mr.R.Z.Moray for petitioners. Mr.B.M.Chaterjee i/b Mr.Suresh Kumar for Income Tax Department Union of India Mr.Rafique Dada, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Snehal Paranjape and Mr.O.Mohandas i/b Little and 2 Co. for respondent no.3 L.I.C. Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2005 1 All India LIC Employees Federation & anr. ..Petitioners vs. 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India and another ..Respondents Mr.K.B.Bhujale for petitioners Mr.Rafique Dada, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Snehal Paranjape and Mr.O.Mohandas i/b Little and Co. for L.I.C. Mr.B.M.Chaterjee i/b Mr.Suresh Kumar for Income Tax Department. Writ Petition No. 2088 of 2006 Insurance Workers Organisation Mumbai Division and anr. ..Petitioners vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors ..Respondents Mr.A.G.Damle for petitioners Mr.Rafique Dada, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Snehal Paranjape and Mr.O.Mohandas i/b Little and Co. for L.I.C. Mr.B.M.Chaterjee i/b Mr.Suresh Kumar for Income Tax Department. 3 CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED JJ 12th April,2010 P.C. Perused petitions. 1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Rafique Dada, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr.Chatterjee for the Income Tax Department. 2 Basically these petitions are challenging the validity of the Circular issued by the respondent- Life Insurance Corporation of India (the Corporation) in relation to the valuation of perquisites by way of housing accommodation provided by the respondent Corporation. 3 The challenge to the Circular now does not survive in view of the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Arunkumar and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006(286) ITR 89 (SC); wherein and whereunder while upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 3, the Court observed that Rule 3 4 will get attracted only after it was proved that there was a concession in the matter of rent since there was no deeming fiction. The law laid down by the Apex Court takes care of the apprehension canvassed by the petitioners while challenging Circular impugned in the petition. 4 In the above view of the matter the challenge set up as well as cause of action to proceed with the petitions do not survive. In the result, all these petitions are liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 5 It is needless to mention that with the dismissal of these petitions, interim orders, if any, (in all these petitions) shall stand vacated automatically. 6 The respondent/employer shall be liable to quantify the tax liability equivalent to the TDS which was deductible and payable to the Income Tax Department and shall remit the same to the Income Tax Department, subject to the availability of the monies in the hands of the employer belonging to the assessee-employee, within three months from the receipt of copy of this 5 order. 7 It is needless to mention that in the event, the employee-assessee is able to produce assessment order showing the completed assessment or no income tax liability , then the employer need not deduct the amount of TDS and may forward the assessment order along with photo copy of the PAN card of the employee to his Assessing Officer for information. In the event of compliance of these directions, employer shall not be treated as assessee-in-default. 8 We make it clear that it would also be open for the Income Tax Department to take appropriate further steps to proceed with the assessment and/or reassessment, as the case may be, in accordance with law following law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment of Arunkumar (supra)including the steps to recover their tax dues, if any. 9 It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of either of the p arties to implement directions, if any, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, (CBDT)New Delhi in this behalf. 6 10 In the result all these petitions are dismissed as infructuous. Rule stands discharged in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)