Commercial Land Treated as Agricultural in NH-28 Acquisition: Patna HC Permits Petitioner to Claim Income Tax Refund on Compensation [Read Order]
The order arises from a challenge to an acquisition award that treated the petitioner’s parcel as agricultural land though she contended that it was commercial in nature.
Compensation - taxscan
Compensation - taxscan
The Patna High Court in a recent order, recorded that a petitioner may pursue administrative remedy to seek relief regarding both, the classification of land acquired for widening National Highway-28 and the alleged wrongful deduction of income tax from the acquisition compensation given therein.
The matter relates to a plot situated between Baidarabad Mahaveer Mandir and Baidarabad Naya Pool/Bridge in Mauza Baidarabad, Arwal district, owned by the writ petitioner, Indrapadi Devi. The said plot was acquired by the government for the construction of NH-28.
Indrapadi Devi approached the Patna HC through counsel Ambuj Nayan Chaubey and Bhairaw Nand Sharma, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to re-classify and re-calculate compensation at four times the present market value or at commercial Minimum Value Register (MVR) rates fixed by the State including solatium, 18% compound interest and refund of income tax deducted from the award.
Counsel for the State, Dhurjati Pd informed the court that the acquisition award had been prepared classifying the land as agricultural and that compensation had been paid. The Counsel further submitted that the petitioner could agitate grievances before the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
The Petitioners’ counsel confirmed to the Bench that they would approach the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks.
Justice Rajiv Roy recorded these positions and directed that, if the petitioner prefers the statutory petition before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks, the authority shall adjudicate the matter to its logical conclusion after hearing all parties at the earliest, and proceed to dispose of the matter on these grounds.
The court did not adjudicate the substantive classification or order an immediate refund of tax; instead it mandated prompt administrative consideration, leaving open statutory remedies for the petitioner to seek revised compensation and recovery of any wrongly deducted income tax.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
