TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court rendered by a full Bench in Pradip Kr. Taye ( 2009 (12) TMI 285 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT ) as well as in view of the Tax Exemption Certificates dated 10.12.2020 and 21.04.2021 issued by the respondent department; this Court is of the view that the prayers made by the petitioner will have to be allowed. The petitioner is indeed entitled to the benefits accrued under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, Mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent, more particularly, the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) as well as the concerned Income Tax Officer of the ward to expeditiously process the request for refund of income tax deducted from the salary of the petitioner and remit to the petitioner forthwith. Respondent department is directed to carry out this order within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA For the Petitioner : Mr. A Goyal For the Respondent : Dy. S.G.I. ORDER Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department. 2. The petitioner is servin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment still holds the field and therefore the respondent authorities are duty bound in law to refund the taxes deducted from his salary in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Pradip Kr Taye (Supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a Judgment by Tripura High Court, where Pradip Kr Taye (Supra) has been relied upon. 5. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department does not dispute the position of law laid down in the said Judgment of this Court. He submits that in terms of the Judgment, this Court has laid down that in terms of the benefit accrued under Section 10(26), beneficiaries like the petitioner who are members of Scheduled Tribes are not required to pay income tax. He, however, submits that further time be granted to him to obtain the required instructions from the department. 6. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on records have been perused. The Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been carefully perused. Provisions of the statute have also been noted. It is also seen that the Department has already issued a Certificate in favour of the petitioner unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea specified occurring under section 10(26), in our view, cannot be given a narrow and restricted meaning to imply that the members of a Scheduled Tribe migrating from their place of origin, which happens to fall in one of the areas specified in the said sub-section, to another area although once again falling within the areas specified in the sub-section, would not get the benefit of the exemption under section 10(26). If a literal meaning is to be given to the expression residing in any area specified , in our view, section 10(26) is capable of producing a result that any member of a Scheduled Tribe irrespective of the fact whether such a Scheduled Tribe is a Scheduled Tribe, in relation to those territories specified in the said sub-section or not, is entitled to the bene fit of the said subsection. It is not the case of either the petitioners or the revenue that the Parliament, white enacting section 10(26) intended such result. Therefore, the expression residing in any area specified must be interpreted in the context of the said sub-section. The context of the sub-section is that it is a special provision with reference to the specified areas of the country, that is, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) of section 10(26), such a restriction, regarding the territory (with reference to which the income arising out of dividend or interest on securities arise), is not applicable. 30. Yet another reason to reject the interpretation sought to be placed on the said sub-section by the revenue is the history of the sub-section. It is already noticed earlier, originally the provision sought to exclude the employees of the government from the purview of the benefit conferred by the said sub-section, which was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as creating an unreasonable classification among the Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court in S.K. Dutta (supra) held such a classification to be illegal. At para-14 of the said judgment the Supreme Court held as follows: It was the contention of the learned Solicitor-General that exemption from income-tax was given to members of certain scheduled tribes due to their economic and social backwardness; it is not possible to consider a government servant as socially and economically backward and, hence, the exemption was justly denied to him. According to the Solicitor-General, once a tribal becomes a government servan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
