The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rest of the relief has been granted, though after a delay of 2½ years but the petitioner has yet not been given the TDS certificate, which the respondents were to issue. It is also submitted that the TDS amount deducted by the respondents has not been deposited with the Income Tax Department, which they were bound to deposit. It is also submitted that the petitioner had to move two execution petitions even for getting his dues which have been paid to the petitioner after 2½ years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a special cost.
2. The learned counsel for UOI submitted that it may be true that there is a delay in the matter of payment but in view of the order passed by the Tribunal itself, all the payments have been given to the petitioner with interest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for UOI that since petitioner did not give his PAN number, the respondent could not deposit the TDS amount with the Income Tax Department. So far as the cost is concerned, according to the learned counsel for respondent, there is no need of imposing cost when interest has been paid.
3. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Since rest of the order has been complied with, therefore, we have to find a solution in the interest of justice so that no harm is caused to the petitioner and therefore, for that purpose, we took up the matter of not giving the TDS certificate to the petitioner by the respondents. The total amount involved, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is Rs. 21,691/-. As admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not submit any income tax return for the relevant period because of the reason that the petitioner was not required to file return as his income was below the taxable limit, but whatever may be the amount lying with the respondents, it should have been deposited with the Income Tax Department so that the petitioner could have been in a position to apply for refund of the amount, which the petitioner could not do.
4. We conclude the controversy in view of the fact that since the petitioner himself has applied for PAN number and the respondents submit that the TDS amount will be deposited with the Income Tax Department upon furnishing the PAN number, we feel no further order is required, except that the petitioner may submit his PAN No. to the respondents, who shall deposit the amount immediately with the Income Tax Department accordingly, from where the petitioner may get back the TDS amount.
5. So far as the difficulty of the petitioner, which is due to the total inaction of the respondents, we are in full agreement with the petitioner that he had to file the execution petitions twice, which could have been avoided and in fact, which should have been avoided by the respondents themselves. We do not find any justification for compelling the petitioner for filing of the execution petition. We feel that, it was the duty of the respondents to comply with the directions contained in the order. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the law should have been otherwise. The law should have been that upon passing of the order, it should be the duty of the judgment-debtor against whom the order has been passed to apply to the court and obtain a certificate of compliance with the directions of the court/Tribunal. The litigants are not coming to the court for obtaining any dormant order or decree of the court, which requires injecting life in the order and decree by way of filing execution petitions. Litigants pay the court fee for the relief and not for any order which in itself gives no relief and only gives a reason for filing another petition in the name of execution. After paying the court fee, the petitioners specifically pray for grant of relief and in view of the decade old laws, the petitioners are not getting the relief, but are getting only decisions and decisions of nature which cast no duty upon the respondents to satisfy the court that the directions given by the court have been complied with.
6. Be it as it may, the present law is that even after creation of the Tribunals for speedy remedy to the litigants, still Section 29 contains the provision for execution of the order without there being any provision casting duty upon the other party to apply or obtain a certificate from the Tribunal that the order has been complied with.
7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for imposing a heavy cost upon the respondents, as the petitioner had to file execution petitions twice, therefore, we have observed as above.
8. In this case, according to the learned counsel for the Union of India, the petitioner was paid the amount after inordinate delay and the delay has been compensated by payment of interest. We are of the considered opinion that when payment is delayed and interest is paid, it is “interest as damages” against the delay in payment and not the cost of the execution or subsequent execution or award against the harassment of the litigant. Therefore, payment of interest cannot be a sufficient compensation to the litigant, who was compelled to file successive cases for execution in the court because of the fault on the part of the respondents. Therefore, this execution petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to give PAN number to the respondents, who thereafter will give TDS certificate to the petitioner and the respondents will also deposit TDS amount with the Income Tax Department. The particulars of the said deposit with the Income Tax Department shall also be given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner will be entitled to a cost of Rs. 20,000/-, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month.
A copy of the order be given Dasti.