High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S H Yuvaraja vs K P T C L on 26 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S H Yuvaraja vs K P T C L on 26 June, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE

DATED THIS THE 2661 DAY 0;? JUNE 2QfJ§ ".,

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MIT   

WRYI' PETITION Nos.15852-1§'§8S"..5'.'_OVI3' 

BETWEEN

1

SR1 s 91 YUVARAJA  
s/0 G HANUMANTHAPPA, -. 

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 5 ' ~

R/O NO."1860/186,   '-  

am (moss, LAEOUR COLONY;
DAVANGERE' , . - g  1  
PROP: sag I\5AF _?U'I'H_I ELEQTRZCALS 

SR1 PRAKE;-Sit! Y G sfcijjv. Gov: BASAPPA
R/A%_7TH.}v;;RD, IVIEGALAPET, 
A?PEI<"SQfHOOL;'{NEAR), 
HARAPAN1?x--ft§ A.L'Lz«-5'%:=3 131, . j
DAVANGERE ~D'IS'I'.   " _

PR0:-'3: SR1 FRA2~:AsI-1" 'F_._1§E('3'FRICALS

_E?«RI MA'£;Aj*m; 1$i£::*rAD,
.. «.;S/ 0 PU'I'FA'E?I¥'A EVJOTAD,
- AGED ABOUT 3'6'"fEARS

R/RSHESHAGIRI HANAGAL TALUK,

A " '' wIsiA5.(£%;§~zI'~r;»:s?1'.
 PR"C)f?:_'SR}V'MALATHESHA ELECTRICALS WORKS

 sRz~m§§MAN REDDY, 3/0 NARASA REDDY,

.5939 ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A ~7'I'1~: WARD, MEGALAPET,

I 4_ HARAPANA HALL}-583 131
DAVANGERE DIST.
" PROP: MfS'I'IRUMALA ELEC'FRICA.LS'

SR1 J NIRANJANA, S/O J HALAPPA,
AGE§ ABOUT 52 YEARS

Rffi ANAVATTI-57'? 413,

SIHMOGA DEST.

PROP: ASHWINI ELECTRICALS

SR3 H M VEJAYA KUMAR,
SIC H MALLEKARJUNAPPA



AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

R/A NO. 10, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA,
GANDHARVA NAGAR,

NEW MANDH

SHIIVIOGA

PROP: M/S H M POWER ASSOCMTES.

 I4.'.7f:'I'1*1VoN Eiés.'_.'

{By Sri 'I'.R.SUBBANNA, sR.cc>U1~Isgs';L"1I°::)R sip: fix?    

WDYULATHA M/' S SIVAN 85 SW}
AND :

1 K P T c L 
CAUVERY BHAVEN, IBANGAJ-_.C_)RE_V
REPI'. BY yrs MA:p:egG1Nra"Di:e_2;cT<;3R,

2 FINANCIAL ADVISOR, '(Z-'~.8sR'},; 
KPTCL, CORPORATE 'o.§?1«'1c§;, V  ; .. ~
7TH FL0o'R,__cAL:VE§<3*.BEAVAN, - 
BANGALORE'   

TL 8: ss blvxszofm,

:3 EXECUTIVE m"1v1sI0N.A * " '
 KPFC-mnmooa   %%%%% 

5  EXECi}"i'i_VE1.EN(Z%INEER ELECTRICAL,

- '=':_*L"esT 33 13msI0:_v," 
K:?1x:*L,.TALA§3uPjm, SAGAR TALUK
sI~{iM0GA DIST'. 

*5 [UNION QFVENDIA
" ~ 1.  R*EPRESEESI'1'EB BY COMMISSIONER GP
' m<:oME TAX (TBS; CENTRAL REVENUE
 BUILDEIG, QUEENS man,
._gBA.N<3AL0RE 1
' %  RESPONDENTS

V ‘ {B:y?’$:-i i~1.v.DEvAi2AJ, ADV. FOR SR1 N K GUPTA Fore mms;

THESE WI-‘S FILEXD UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 2’27 OF’
THE CONS’I’ITU’I’iON OF INDIA PRAYING ‘TO QUASH THE LETTER
DT. 5.2.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, AT ANNEX~B TO THE
WRIT PETITION.

3. when the matter is
Mr.M.V.Ses21achaIa, learned standing
for the income tax d€§)aI’tIIl6I’1.f;>AA>§’J}bII1’§”?;S’ *
regard to the decisions rendefegi :”
interpreting Section 195(3)”ef’¢;1e seems e
to make necessary ” VAVV.V’::issessi:<1g
authority and the consider the
request of tléhueé '2 ..26% as tax at
source. considered and

diSp0Sefi'evOi':' 'tf1e':%.1;jz:it ~is..fiot maintainable.

4;' 1,;L4havev~.fiee.1§i4Mf;'F.R.Subbanna, learned senior

coggisel. . for the petitioner and

}.'[tf§}*i.i*;Seshachafe; learned counsel appearing fer the

well as Mrflevara} for Mr.N.K.Gupta,

In &eed.; {he Apex Court in almost identical cases has

obserireti thus:

” ‘the purpose cf Sub»-«Section (1; of seam 195 s to
see that on the sum which is chargeable under
Section 4 of the Act, for levy and collection of
income-tax, the prayer should deduct income tax
thereon at the rates in force, if the amount is to befi

‘ethereefizntjefere making payment. ‘

iii’t;Eie case on hand, it is to be noticed that the
1 . geJt;a:i;m.e:-s in these writ: petitions have not made any

,,.,,.e,%§.1′}fp.iieau’on as observed by the Apex Court. fl

paid to a nan-resident. The said provisior:.__is for
tentative deduction of income-tax thereon. to
regular assessment and by the bf
income-tax, the rights of the we
manner, adversely afi”ecteci’ 1′. A’
the payee or recipient
sections 195(2), 19S(3;eV%%waee.1§z
which is required to beagma is to fize’ an
for by that such
sum would notflkie’ in the case of
the recipient, offer’ the appropriate

or for grant
of “the recipient to receive

the V pftax, or deduction

of rate. On such
detennmatz}m, ‘théfgpproprazte rate could be

4. the 13′ no such application is
on sum is to be deducted and
obligation of the person
reS;::e§teribZe’.v’;}Z;5f paying such ‘sum’ to deduct tax

5. Mr.Subban11a, learned senior Counsel submits

that if some time is granted to make

application, they would make such

however, with a rider that the

considered, the tax be deducteo-_at so: if

6. Mr.M.V.Seshacha1é;.:Iea1’I1e<i eobmits V

that the appficafiofi; coneidered in

accordance with law. '

:;f;e__ foflowifijzg 'order is passed:

necessary application

of four weeks from today to the

. ., aéeessirig officer.

V. The aeéessing ofiicer shall consider the

‘ .:. f:–«._,:aopi,ieafion at the earliest. Till the applications

‘ considered and an order is passed, the

z 1 respondents shall deduct only 2.26% as TBS.

Petitions disposed of accordingly.

AI/~

Sdfz-.2
Ifdii