AMAL SHYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, 32 in numbers, are employed under the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (for short "ONGC Ltd."), and presently working under the Tripura Asset of ONGC Ltd. Since all of them belong to the scheduled tribe community, their challenge in this writ petition is the letter of the Income -tax Officer (TDS), Agartala, dated December 1, 2011 (annexure E to the writ petition) and the letter dated December 14, 2011 (annexure G to the writ petition) wherein respondent No. 6, the Asset Manager, ONGC Ltd., Tripura Asset, was informed that it came to the notice of him that in gross violation of the provisions of section 192 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, no deduction of tax at source is being made in respect of the employees who are members of the scheduled tribe posted in the State of Tripura even though no certificate authorizing non -deduction/lower deduction as per the Income -tax Act has been issued from their end. Such action is violative of the provisions of the Income -tax Act (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act") and, consequent upon, respondent No. 6 was requested to send the list of the scheduled tribe employees who are working under the control of respondent No. 6 along with their present and permanent addresses for taking further necessary actions, and also to furnish the details of those scheduled tribe employees before December 21, 2011. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel assisting Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant SG appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) CONSIDERING the facts involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parries, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the order stage.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 4 by way of filing an affidavit -in -opposition have stated that in none of the impugned letters, the respondent -employer, particularly, respondent No. 6 was asked to deduct income -tax from the salary of the petitioners, rather respondent No. 6 was requested to instruct the concerned tax deducting authority for compliance with the provisions of the Act and also for furnishing details of the scheduled tribe employees working under his control as required under section 192 as well as 197 of the Act which provides for deduction of tax on the income. It is further stated that the case of Pradip Kumar Taye (supra) has no application in the instant case. In that case, income -tax was deducted from the petitioners for which they had approached the court to direct the respondents therein to give exemption to them from paying income -tax and also to refund the income -tax already deducted from them at source. But, in the instant case, neither income -tax is deducted from the salary of the petitioners nor is it held that they are not entitled to exemption as provided under section 10(26) of the Act. Only respondent No. 6, employer of the petitioners, was asked to furnish certain information regarding the scheduled tribe employees working under him.