K.O. VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P10 intimation that he received from the Income Tax Department, under section 245 of the Income Tax Act, which informed him that, although he was entitled to a refund of tax for the assessment year 2016-17, the said refund was being adjusted towards outstanding dues of the petitioner pertaining to the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he is a civil works contractor engaged in the activity of Public Works Department under the 2nd respondent Corporation. The income earned by him for the various assessment years from 2008-09 to 2016-17 was essentially income received from the 2nd respondent Corporation for the works executed for them. It would appear that, out of the payments envisaged, under the contracts entered into with the 2nd respondent Corporation, amounts had to be deducted by the 2nd respondent Corporation by way of tax deducted at source from the payments that were due to the petitioner. It is also seen that the 2nd respondent Corporation did deduct various amounts from the payments due to the petitioner, and a substantial part of the amounts deducted were also forwarded to the Income Tax Department, citing the PAN number of the petitioner, for the purposes of crediting the account of the petitioner with the Income Tax Department with the said amounts. Apparently, for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, amounts that were deducted by the respondent Corporation, from payments that were made to the petitioner, were not fully credited to the account of the petitioner with the Income Tax Department, since there was a mistake in citing the PAN number of the petitioner at the time of forwarding some of the payments to the Income Tax Department. It is stated that, while steps have been taken in respect of majority of the payments to correct the discrepancy, and to inform the Income Tax Department of the same, on account of a lack of cooperation from the petitioner, the discrepancies with regard to the remaining amount could not be sorted out with the Income Tax Department. I also note from the averments in the writ petition that the petitioner has not resorted to timely steps with the Income Tax Department, such as the filing of rectification applications in respect of the various assessment years in question, within the time permitted under the Income Tax Act, so as to get the amounts, that were subsequently received by the Income Tax Department from the respondent Corporation, credited in his assessment. The prayer now made, in the writ petition, is for a direction to the 2nd respondent Corporation to discharge the tax liability of the petitioner as against the Income Tax Department, in respect of the amounts received by the petitioner by way of income by works carried on by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the Income tax Department, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Corporation as also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.