What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no evidence of coercion or pressure in the execution of the receipt. It held that the appellant voluntarily received the payment and executed the receipt, thus the execution petition was rightly dismissed as satisfied.

The appellant (decree holder) received a payment of `22,82,773/- after deduction under Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act. This payment was acknowledged in a receipt as full and final settlement of claims. The appellant challenged the dismissal of their execution petition, claiming the receipt was issued under pressure.

What were the issues?

Whether the receipt for full and final settlement was executed under coercion, and if the execution petition was rightly dismissed as satisfied.

CIT vs Agricultural Market Committee | Telangana High Court 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

OSA No. 9 of 2011.

Decided on: 24th April, 2018

M/s Joginder Lal Sethi

.......Appellant. Versus Union of India & Another

….Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Senior Advocate with

Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Lokinder Pal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).

In this appeal order dated 31.5.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Execution Petition No.21 of 2009, is under challenge.

The impugned order reveals that the execution petition was dismissed as fully satisfied on the basis of the receipt dated 29.10.2009 Annexure A-3 to this appeal. As a matter of fact, the appellant

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 decree holder has received a sum of `22,82,773/-, after deduction of a sum of `1,09,439/- under Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act. In the receipt Annexure A-3, the amount so received by him was towards full and final settlement of his claims and nothing remained due and payable to it by the JD. The challenge to the impugned order is on the grounds inter alia that the receipt Annexure A-3 has been issued by the appellant-DH under pressure and under coercion and to receive its long overdue payment, which would not have been released by the respondents without executing the same. As a matter of fact, the execution petition was filed by the appellant after receipt of `22,82,773/- towards full and final settlement to its claim under the award. 3. Learned Single Judge has, however, considered the receipt Annexure A-3 a document executed by the appellant and consequently dismissed the execution petition being fully satisfied. It

3 is difficult to believe that the appellant was under pressure or the respondent department has obtained the receipt under coercion. It cannot also be believed that the due and admissible payment would have not been released by the JD to the DH, had such receipt been not executed. The DH rather to our mind has received the amount in question and executed the receipt voluntarily. Therefore, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)

Judge.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) April 24, 2018(ps)

Judge.

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments