JOSE V. CHERRY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to permit the petitioner to remit TDS in the name of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, or to formulate an appropriate mechanism for receiving the TDS from the vendor/court by making necessary updation in the web portal and to register the sale certificate issued by the Sub Court, Thiruvalla.

(2.) Heard the Government Pleader and the standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. Notice to the 7 th respondent taken out through special messenger and she was served. She has however chosen not to appear in these proceedings.

(3.) The petitioner is the plaintiff/decree holder in OS No.95/2012 of Sub Court, Thiruvalla, filed for specific performance of an agreement and the 7th respondent is the judgment debtor. Ext.P1 produced along with the writ petition, is a copy of the decree. When the decree was not complied with, the petitioner filed an application for execution of the sale deed through the intervention of the Court. The draft sale deed was approved. The petitioner was directed by the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, to remit stamp duty before the 6th respondent. The petitioner submits that the 6th respondent directed the petitioner to deposit TDS equal to 1% of the value of the property (Rs.55,000.00), in the name of the 7 th respondent, as is required under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The 7th respondent was ex parte before the court below, and the petitioner does not know the PAN details of the 7 th respondent and is not able to deposit the TDS. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application before the Sub Court, seeking permission to remit TDS in the name of the Court, but the same is said to be dismissed. The petitioner submits that there is no provision in the e-treasury portal to receive TDS other than from the vendor. The writ petition is filed in the above circumstances.