MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition claimingseveral reliefs. However, Mr. SaswatAcharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined those to following reliefs:

(2.) PETITIONER 's case in a nutshell is that it is a non-profitmaking organization, involved in the general public utility to ensure payment of wages of the labourers as well as their welfare, without involvement in any activity of trade, commerce or business. Petitioner's Trust was created under the recommendation of Justice H.R. Khanna, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India to smoothen the process of payment to labourers engaged by stevedores. Stevedores under the Paradeep Port for cargo handling were engaging group of labourers, on their own choice, on pick and choose basis, for which few group of labourers, were getting constant engagement and other were remaining completely unemployed. That apart, stevedores having their business interest were negotiating with labour leaders to get their work done at reduced rate. This led to fierce infighting between different groups of labourers and ultimately ended up in loss of life and property. In the year 1984, it took such an ugly turn that the Inspector-in-Charge of Paradeep Police Station and his associates together with four labourers lost their lives. Therefore, to solve this problem the Government intervened and the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inParadip Port Trust vs. Paradip Dock &Mazdoor Union, Civil Appeal No.1422 of 1990. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.03.1990, directed to constitute a High Powered Committee under Chairmanship of Mr. H.R. Khana, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India with two members nominated by the Ministry of Surface Transport, one of whom is a representative of that Ministry and another is an expert in Port Management. The High Powered Committee had to decide the question of listing the unlisted labourers and their welfare measures at Paradeep Port Trust. As per recommendation of the Hon'ble Former Justice Mr. H.R. Khanna, Supreme Court of India, a body was formed in the name of petitioner-Management Committee (CFH) Scheme. The petitioner-Committee comprises all "Stevedores", "Senior Officials of Paradeep Port Trust" and "Labour Representatives from different labour Unions" to manage uniform engagement of labourers and disbursement of wages ensuring their welfare, health, housing and retirement benefit etc., so as to ensure that no labour of the pool is exploited by any of the Stevedores. Thus, the power of disbursement of wage was withdrawn from the stevedores and was entrusted to the pool constituted by the petitioner- Management Committee (CFH) Scheme. With this backdrop, the petitioner-charitable organization registered under Section 12AA of the Act, 1961.

(3.) MR . S.K. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that due to dilatory tactics of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and particularly, the action of opposite party No. 1 for non-compliance of the order of this Court, the petitioner is now falling within the mischief of the penal and prejudicial proceedings under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act, 1961. Since, No-Deduction Certificate had not been issued to the petitioner in time, some principals who engage the services of the labourers through the petitioner trust, made payments to the petitioner deducting TDS from such payments, whereas other principals have not deducted TDS considering the fact that the petitioner has been getting the No- Deduction Certificate in the past. Consequently, the petitioner faces a double edged sword in the manner of wrongful collection of taxes form the payments made by principals after deducting TDS and disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) for payments made by principals without deducting TDS. Even though for the immediately preceding year i.e. the financial year 2008-09, no-deduction certificate was issued to the petitioner under Section 197 of the Act, but the same was not considered by opposite party Nos.1 to 3 while rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuance of no-deduction certificate under Section 197 of the Act for the financial year 2009-10.