High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M Shivakumar vs K P T C L on 13 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri M Shivakumar vs K P T C L on 13 August, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
EN THE HIGH COURT' OF KARNATAKA AT BANc§A1,oRE

DATED THIS THE 2613 DAY OF JU1m~2r;(§%;:  "  %
BEFORE   H n 1T

THE I~{0N'BLEI Mr. J  '  ( 7

WRIT PETITION Nos.VM'--%}28-&1=:1~é'l 4{) oF;2_»:3;Q9'rP-jTi%  f »

BETWEEN

I

SR1 M SHIVAKUMAR _  V,
sm (3. MALLESHAPPA,   
1:2/0 NO. 1162, 2199 MAIN, 'V V
?'I'I-I moss, V1N;OB"HA. ;~,z9.'g5:~*e_,
DAVAl§EA'C?s§;I?E.     ' 

FROQ :gREjE.'fr;~1,m. g-3j;};)C'E'_E€I{;Ai,S;'WV--

SRI.1i{,T;iAf3AVfN';i)«S;/'§¥.I€;T'.'SWf3MY,

,.AGE.D'z%£3OU€B41"'YE}ARS "  V  V
 R/o.sRI»,G:;Rm3EvA.VNz1.A_vA
'NEAR BB0joFF1cE,_cHALLAKERE

CHITRAEDURGA. _DIST .'~ . 
PRVQE:-:qsATH:e'usHV1}&';3E ELECTRICALS,

1 ' '' $R£.U:LmAs'1§eg,<3;U ELECTRICALS,
s_R;;r§é£.aujL1:<ARJuNA A KOTEHAL. s/ O.K.H.A.JJAPPA

AGE-E}"ABOU'? 45 YEARS

' .. Ri~_O.NO.6'?8E/66, 67',

3..-F?I.NA§?ADHAMUNI NILAYA
3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,

 SI-IIVAKUMARA SWAMY LAYOUT

DAVANGERE
PRORSHAYADFEI ELECTRECALS 85 CONSTRUCTION

SRI.T.NAC}ARAJ S] OTIPPE RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O.'I'I--i1%LLAK, CHALLAKERE TALUK,
NEAR RAJLWAY S'I'A'I'¥ON
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
PR{)P:SI~EARA¥3I-IA ELECTRICALS



I0

SRI.T.SHIVANNA S/O.'I'HIMMANNA.B.
AGEE ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O.KURU[)IHALLI , BALANAHALLI POST
CHALLAKERE TALUK

CHITRADURGA EXSTRICT
PROP:PAVf'¥'i-IRA ELECTRICALS

SRLM. MSIDDAPPA S] O.THiMi\dAPPA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R]O.{)ODDAMALLAPURA POST A "  '
CHANAGII-'21 TALUK, DAVANGE}¥E"'D'IST 

SRi.B.M.NAGARAdAPPA. s;o.8;;'M.n}%_RU'TH§ 

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS  _  =  _ '
R/O.NO.1 147, 'r.B.ExTEr:s1=c2r¢, DAVANGERE   
PROP: swama ELECTRZCALS, *   

AGED mom' ?1Y.I3*.ARs --_ , . "   ._
R/0.RAMP'URA, MUiA1{:1.I..MIJEU TALUK' ,
CHITRADURGA D1sf;f,_ PROP; s.s.ENQ1m;E--:es

SRI.D.N.L.AKSHMANA SjO.NAC.§_AP§A_._

SfE~?i'.'RAVijNDRfi; R. ex/,0..RAN'GAMUTHA:AH .K
AGEDA;{3£:§{}jI'V3V1Y.EA£2S _ --

R10;-NLSARGA-~ NILAYA  ~ '

'?'I"H GROSS, 's§jAr~¥rH:'m;GAR
DODDABALLAPURAV-"S61 203

_ PROP  ~s. 12.:e: V 37;C'PRlCALS

 -  _ 1 1..f s1§i'.cHA2sa35;§2A$;I«;ra'DRA.N. S] <1). KARIBASAVANA GOWDA

AGED ':'.BOU'I' 49 YEARS

'  R10~.%1?a1~x_1, 2240 MAIN

T2.1s:';:r»_ CROSf+},VIN{}8HANAGAI?

 ..,'DAVA;NG'ERE, PROP: I\¥.C.ELE{3'I'RiCALS

12 

sRi.méAv;KUMAR S] 0. sHARA1~:A.P§»A
AGE'-D ABOUT 35 YEARS
Rf0.1'?81[1,2ND MAIN

A' '   2N1) cRoss,vzN0E3HANAGAR

DAVANGERE, PROP : MAHESH ELECTRICALS

SRLA.P. RADHASWAMY S] OAR. PANDURANGAPPA
R]'O.NC).51,GKW LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGARBANGALORE - 560 040

PROP : AURSON ELECTRICALS  PETITIONERS

(Ey Sri T.R.SUB3ANNA, SRCOUNSEL FOR Smt : 83 V
VIDYULATHA M/S Si'/AN 85 SN, ADVS.) '



deducted at source was only 2.26% from the V.  of
contractors for income tax purpose under  H
of the Income Tax. It appears,   
Corporation has all of a sucldeié 
deducting 30.30% towards   

appears, the said deducfief1«._js_VV 011"   bsgsis of a
-- 5«u§'se9'2 We KPTCL,

cemmumcatxon xssueri   

that the tax deductedV--vna.i;'s ':.be 10.30% as
eentemplsteéi   efgtlle Act. Aggrieved
by the'_saV»iEcis. unilaterally taking
the  fate of 'PBS from 2.266% to
10.300/2

;, ‘fee is filed.

On Mr.M.V.Seshacha_1a has entered

. ap§;ears:nee§

3; the matter is taken up,

V –V learned standing counsel appearing

‘A for. income tax department submits that having

to the decisions rendered by the Apex Court,

V’ wizlterptretixlg Section I95(3) ef the Act, the petitioners are

to make necessary application before the assessing /3

authority and the assessing authofity shall consider the
requcst of the f,)61Ziti()i}(?.1’$ for deducting 2.26% as at
source. Until the said application is
di5P0sed of, the writ pcfition is not

4. I have heard Mr.T.R.St;b”bann;ag_4’A.is§§f%is(% sst1ié;*«KV’
counsel apgmaring for fizs A’
Mr.M.V.Seshachala, the V
resmndent as ‘W611 for “Mr’.’N;”f3(.Gupta.

Indeed, the Apex cases has

obssméd’s”t}1V.1::§:s: _

?”z.né (1) of Section 195 is to
see’ gm ‘the which as chargeable under

tfw Act, far levy and coflection of
_ payer should deduct income tax
. the rates in force, gfthe amount is to be
j_2′:§?’Vd nonwesident.’ The said pmvision is for
deduction of inconuzwtax thereon subject to
.:*’e:-gala)” assessment and by the deduction of

in.come–tax, the rights of the parties are not, in any ‘

mwmer, adversely cyffected. Further, the rights of

the payee or recxgpient are fully sqfeguarded under
seciions 195(2), 195(3) and 19?. The only thing
which is required to be clone is to file an applzmnaiion

for determination by the Assessing (wiser that such ;/9
./

J’

Consequently, the following order is ._

(1) Petitioners shall make 4_

within a period of four Weeks tag; 2 u

assessing officer.

(2) The assessing kj j’;-,di§§3ider”: the”

appficafionat the. _ _ afipficafions
are considtéréti’ ‘ is passed, the

2.26% as TDS.

Peti.[iOi1s bf accardangly. .

Sd/1.

Judge