Skip to main content

No deductions allowed from a judgment-debt/arbitral award

Cause Title : M/s. Neo Built Corporation Vs. Union of India, EC 272 of 2022, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 10.07.2023

Corum : Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

Citied: 

  1. All India Reporter Ltd. vs. Ramchandra D. Datar; AIR 1961 SC 943
  2. S.S. Miranda Ltd. vs. Shyam Bahadur Singh; 1984 SCC OnLine Cal 161
  3. Voith Hydro Ltd. vs. NTPC Limited; 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1325

Background

An award of Rs. 3.88 cr was decreed against the Metro Railway which was reaffirmed on appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. However, the grievance of the award-holder is that instead of Rs. 3.88 crores which was recorded in the order dated 4th May, 2023, the award-holder received an amount of only Rs. 3.5 crores. The difference of about Rs. 38 lacs was a result of the award-debtor deducting TDS on the said amount. The Metro Railway argued that the deduction has been done as per the rules set by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways.

Judgment

The question before the HC was whether TDS can be deducted from an awarded/decretal amount.

Referring to the judgments above, the HC observed that the Supreme Court held that the judgment-debtor cannot satisfy the claim of a third party against the judgment-creditor and pay only the balance to the latter in the absence of a direction in the decree to that effect and it has been further decided by the various courts that the judgment-debtor who had deducted TDS, - would be at liberty to take steps for recovery of the amount from Income Tax Authority in accordance with law.

The HC held that the position in law is that the decretal amount is a “judgment-debt” and must be paid in its entirety to the decree-holder. No amount can be deducted as tax at source from the decretal sum and that the judgment-debtor is not entitled to pay only the balance amount to the decree-holder.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more