IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4309 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THOMAS VARKEY,THEKKINETH,MATTAKUZHY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, SRI.P.K.NIJOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARETMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI,CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD,KOCHI - 682 018. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.4310 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NOs.4309,4310,4311,4312 & 4313 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT All these writ petitions are filed challenging the deductions of income tax made, under section 194 (LA) of the Income Tax Act. According to the petitioners, eventhough properties belonging to them were notified for acquisition for a public purpose, the land in question were not acquired through the normal procedure contemplated under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, the land were acquired on executing agreement in Form 10(a) as per Rule 12(5) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules 1990. Contention of the petitioner is that compulsory deduction of income tax was not warranted in such cases because the purchase was made through negotiations and it was not acquired through normal process of law as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in WA.No.2243/2008 dated WP(C).4309/2011 & conn.cases. 2 8.1.2009, in order to canvass the above position. 3. However it is noticed that tax deductions were already effected and the petitioners have filed returns claiming refund. Since the amount of deduction has already been transferred to the Income Tax Department by the Land Acquisition authorities, it is for the assessing authority concerned to consider whether the amount is liable for refunded or not. Learned counsel submits that the assessing authority is bound by the Division Bench decision of this court referred above and the petitioners are entitled for full refund of the amount. Since the matter is now pending consideration before the assessing authority, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if that authority is directed to consider and to take a decision on an early basis. 4. Under the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the assessing authority concerned to process the returns and to take appropriate steps to issue intimations to the petitioners if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two WP(C).4309/2011 & conn.cases. 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/