The property of the petitioner was notified for expansion of Seaport Airport Road Phase II. The sale price was fixed by negotiation and the petitioner herein have agreed to hand over the property at the rate fixed during negotiation. But the 2nd respondent is insisting to deduct the income tax from the sale price payable to the petitioner at the rate of 10% and hence the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Thomas v. District Collector (2013 (3) KLT 941). In the said circumstance, respondents 1/District Collector and 2/Special Tahsildar LA are directed to disburse the amount due to the petitioner in the light of the decision cited supra. It is made clear that, if the amount exceeds ₹50 lakhs, necessary deduction shall be effected in terms of Section 194 IA by deducting 1% and WP(c). No. 34746 of 2014 2 depositing the same against the account of the 3rd respondent. It is for the petitioner to pursue further steps accordingly.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn