STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

SRI. KENCHAPPA. B S/O. LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, NO. 14, FIRST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, BHOVIPALYA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD., BLOCK NO.1, 12TH FLOOR MANYATA EMBASSY BUSINESS PARK RACHENAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956), REP. BY ITS HR DIRECTOR, SMT. AMAR PREET KAUR AHUJA.

THE LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 SUB DIVISION-3, BENGALURU NO.45, 1ST FLOOR, KARMIKA BHAWANA BANNERGHATTA ROAD NEAR DIARY CIRCLE BENGALURU-560029

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095. (AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2; SRI. C.K.SUBRAMANYA AND SRI.VASUKI K.N, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. DILIP M AND SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

The appellant/respondent is the ex-employee of the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company had paid gratuity to the respondent-employee after he got separated from the employment of the petitioner-Company. The petitioner- Company has deducted the TDS on the amount of gratuity paid to the respondent-employee along with education cess and deposited with the Income Tax Department. As the gratuity amount paid to the respondent was below the tax limit, no amount of income tax was payable on the gratuity amount paid to the respondent-employee. The authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has directed the petitioner-Company to refund the TDS deducted on the amount paid to the employee. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner-Company had filed a number of writ petitions before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 so far as the direction to refund

We do not see that the judgment and order dated 17.12.2024 requires an interference by this Court, inasmuch as the amount deposited towards the income tax with the treasury may be claimed as refund by filing income tax returns. Therefore, we dispose of the writ appeal by reserving liberty to the respondent-employee to file income tax returns along with an appropriate application for condoning the delay in filing the returns and claim refund of the tax paid on gratuity amount, which was deposited by the company after deducting the same from the gratuity amount payable to the employees. If such returns along with the application to condone the delay are filed, the same should be processed expeditiously, and the refund of any excess amount paid towards income tax should be processed in accordance with law by the Income Tax Department.

We have been informed that there is a dispute regarding the computation of the gratuity payable to the employees for which the appeals are pending before the

With the aforesaid liberty and directions, we dispose of the writ appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE