Vijayaragan Mhc Advt: Continuing his colourful form with the gavel, Justice Anand Venkatesh, has scored another scintillating knock, during these Pandemic times. Not resting on his laurels, dispensing with the requirement of ‘decree drafting’ in motor accidents claims, by orders dt.11/5/2020, in existence for 64 long years, he has now stepped into a 17 year old vintage vexed issue.
When it was brought to his notice that the judgment debtors- be it insurance companies or transport corporations or any other entity, they were caught between the devil and deep sea, in the matter of applying the law relating to Sec.194-A of Income Tax Act,1961, he did not shy away from hearing it. Convinced that there was an ‘apparent disagreement’ and therefore a ‘conflict’, between two decisions of Madras High Court, in NIA vs Mani (2005) and TNSTC vs Chinnadurai (2016), he requisitioned the services of 4 counsel as Amicus , including a Senior Advocate and Senior Standing Counsel of Income Tax Department and conducted a detailed hearing on 13/5/2020.
Satisfied that there is an ‘apparent conflict’ between the judgments in NIA vs Mani ( 2005) and TNSTC vs Chinnadurai ( 2016), Justice Anand Venkatesh has thought it fit to refer the TDS issue under Sec.194-A of Income Tax Act,1961 to a larger bench for resolution of the conflict between the two earlier decisions of Madras High Court.
Interestingly, the learned Judge has adverted to huge sums of money that may be lying as ‘unrefunded’ from
TDS, on interest liability, in motor accidents claims and suggested possible use of the same for hit and run accidents or accidents involving uninsured vehicles or the new concept of ‘golden hour’ care under Act 32 of 2019 replacing Chapter XI of MV Act, 1988.
While referring to the larger bench, the ticklish issues of TDS in this regard, the learned Judge has granted a blanket stay of all EPs relating to and confined to TDS issue before MACTs awaiting a verdict from the larger bench. He found several
EPs pending before claims tribunals and at least 4 CRPs before the HC, on this tricky issue.
The learned judge was considerate and cautious enough to ensure that the entire compensation payable to the victim, while deciding the appeal, by directing M/s. Cholamandalam, insurer to satisfy the award and permitting the claimant to withdraw the same.Despite the social distancing times and Videoconferencing route, the disposal rate has been quite phenomenal. Read the order. the The reader would be well advised to decide whether anybody told this Judge about Lockdown or he is living in a world of his own, immunised and vaccinated from what ordinary mortals, are afflicted by. Bravo!
[5/14, 13:03] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
