GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DR. N.K. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ghaziabad Development Authority (G. D. A.) is aggrieved by the order dated August 5, 1999 of the U. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By this order the State Commission in effect held that it was wrong on the part of the GDA to deduct TDS (tax deducted at source) from the amounts payable to the respondent/complainant. It was the case of the GDA that while paying the interest amounting to Rs. 46,711 as ordered by the State Commission, in a complaint filed by the respondent, it deducted Rs. 8,656 towards tax deducted at source which amount it deposited in the account of the Central Government. Certificate showing deduction of tax and the deposit of this to the account of the Central Government, have been filed. The State Commission was, however, of the view that there was no order passed by it to deduct the tax deducted at source and when there was no such order, no deduction towards tax deducted at source could have been made. The State Commission, therefore, directed that the amount which had been deducted by the GDA towards the tax deducted at source be refunded to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

(2.) This order of the State Commission has been challenged by the GDA on the ground that it was a statutory duty imposed on it under section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to deduct the tax and when it has deposited the tax to the account of the Central Government and has also given a certificate for the tax so deducted to the complainant, it could not be said that there was any deficiency in service on its part or it had contravened the order of the State Commission passed in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. Basing reliance on the case of Rama Bai v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC) ; (1990) (Suppl.) SCC 699 , "Where interest was paid on an enhanced compensation and tax was deducted at source", it was contended that it was rightful on the part of the GDA to deduct the tax. In the present case, it may, however, be noticed that Rama Bai's case (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC) arose out of the interest paid under sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the enhanced compensation as awarded in a reference made under section 18 of that Act, and, further appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court, under the provisions of that very Act.

(3.) To understand the controversy raised in the present case, it will be appropriate at this stage to set out certain facts relevant of this case.