LITHU T.V., V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/39367/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by employees of Attinad Software Pvt. Ltd., who faced demands from the Income Tax Department for TDS amounts that were deducted from their salaries but not remitted by their employer to the tax department. The petitioners argued that they should not be held liable for the non-remittance of TDS, citing various precedents. However, the court found that credit for TDS can only be given if the amounts are actually received by the Income Tax Department, aligning with Section 199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court also noted that Section 205 of the Act bars direct demand on the assessee for taxes deducted at source, but this does not imply automatic credit for amounts not received by the tax department.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746851 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd.; (2009) 15 SCC 1, Sanjay Sudan v. Asst. CIT; (2023) 452 ITR 107 (Delhi), CIT v. Om Praksh Gattani, (2000) 242 ITR 638, Chintan Bindra v. CIT; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7539, Aslam Checkar v. Income Tax Officer (Judgment dated 10.09.2024 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2442 of 2024 and connected cases)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G KEERTHIVAS; P G JAYASHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ADARSH
• Keywords: Credit for Tax Deducted; Income Tax; TDS; Liability for non-remittance
• Section: 201; 205; 199

Judgement Text

"2025:KER:29575 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 26492 OF 2024 PETITIONER/PETITIONER: MRIDUL RAJ KUNNON, AGED 35 YEARS AT KUNNON HOUSE, THALIYIL, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O., KANNUR, KERALA, PIN – 670 567. BY ADV ADARSH S. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. 2 ATTINAD SOFTWARE PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SITUATED AT UNIT 355, NILA BUILDING, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 581. BY ADVS. G.KEERTHIVAS (SC) P.G.JAYASHANKAR (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).26493/2024, 26520/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 26493 OF 2024 PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ZALMA JALAL, AGED 35 YEARS T.C. 4/1465 (C1), CLIFF VALLEY, YMR JUNCTION, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. BY ADV ADARSH S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. 2 ATTINAD SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, UNIT 355, NILA BUILDING, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 581. BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR (SC) G.KEERTHIVAS (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).26492/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 26520 OF 2024 PETITIONER/PETITIONER: VIVEKANAND V.V., AGED 36 YEARS VELLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUVAMKULANGARA, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 306. BY ADV ADARSH S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. 2 ATTINAD SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, UNIT 355, NILA BUILDING, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 581. BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR (SC) G.KEERTHIVAS (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).26492/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 39367 OF 2024 PETITIONER/PETITIONER: LITHU T.V., AGED 35 YEARS THIRUVATHIRA, T.C53/415, PONNUMANGALAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 020. BY ADV ADARSH S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. 2 ATTINAD SOFTWARES PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, UNIT 355, NILA BUILDING, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 581. BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR (SC) G.KEERTHIVAS (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).26492/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 39376 OF 2024 PETITIONER/PETITIONER: SARATH V.S., AGED 37 YEARS MURUKKARATHALA PUTHEN VEEDU, 10-58, PADANTHALUMOODU, NEAR SREE DHARMA SHASTHA TEMPLE, VILAVANCODE, KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU, PIN – 629 163. BY ADV ADARSH S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. 2 ATTINAD SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, UNIT 355, NILA BUILDING, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 581. BY ADVS. G.KEERTHIVAS (SC) P.G.JAYASHANKAR (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).26492/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 6 JUDGMENT [WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 and 39376 of 2024] These writ petitions have been filed by the employees of an entity known as ‘Attinad Software Pvt. Ltd.’, the 2nd respondent in all these writ petitions. According to the petitioners, they were employees of the aforesaid entity, and they are now facing demands from the Income Tax Department because the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) from the salaries paid to them has not been remitted by the aforesaid entity to the Income Tax Department. 2. Sri. S Adarsh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd.; (2009) 15 SCC 1, Sanjay Sudan v. Asst. CIT; (2023) 452 ITR 107 (Delhi), CIT v. Om Praksh Gattani, (2000) 242 ITR 638, Chintan Bindra v. CIT; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7539 and the unreported judgment of the Bombay High Court in 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 7 Aslam Checkar v. Income Tax Officer (Judgment dated 10.09.2024 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2442 of 2024 and connected cases) to contend that the employee should not be mulcted with any liability for the amount of TDS deducted from their salaries by their employer even if such amounts have not been remitted to the Income Tax Department. 3. Sri. Keerthivas Giri, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department would submit that credit can be given only to the extent of money received by the Income Tax Department even on the authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eli Lilly (supra). It is submitted that while it may be open to the Income Tax Department to proceed against the entity for not having remitted the amount of TDS (if any) deducted from the salaries paid to employees like the petitioners, that does not mean that the petitioners are straight away entitled to credit of those amounts, without such amounts having been received by the Income Tax Department. 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 8 4. Though notices have been issued to the 2nd respondent, the same has been returned with the endorsement 'Door Locked and no such institution is working in Techno Park Company'. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, I am of the view that the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department is right in contending that the Income Tax Department can give credit of TDS only to the extent of receipt. This is clear from a reading of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1961 Act’). Section 199 of the 1961 Act reads thus:- 199. Credit for tax deducted.— (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be. (2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (1-A) of Section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 9 as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made. (3) The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than those referred to in sub- section (1) and sub-section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given.” In the light of the express provisions of Section 199 of the 1961 Act what can be the effect of the provisions contained in Section 205 of the 1961 Act? This is the pertinent question to be answered. Section 205 of the 1961 Act reads thus:- “205. Bar against direct demand on assessee:— Where tax is deductible at the source under the foregoing provisions of this chapter the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income.” The Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sudan (supra) holds thus:- 7. According to us, Section 205 read with instruction dated 1-6-2015, clearly point in the direction that the deductee/assessee cannot be called upon to pay tax, which has been deducted at source from his income. The plain language of Section 205 of the Act points in this 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 10 direction. For the sake of convenience, Section 205 is extracted hereafter: \"205. Bar against direct demand on assessee. Where tax is deductible at the source under the foregoing provisions of this chapter, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income.\" 8. The instruction dated 1-6-2015 is aligned with the aforesaid provision of Act inasmuch as it clearly provides in Para 2 that since the Act places a bar on a direct demand qua the deductee assessee, the same cannot be enforced coercively. For the sake of convenience, Para 2 of the said instruction is extracted hereafter: \"2. As per Section 199 of the Act credit of tax deducted at source is given to the person only if it is paid to the Central Government account. However, as per Section 205 of the Act the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax to the extent tax has been deducted from his income where the tax is deductible at source under the provisions of Chapter XVII. Thus the Act puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee in such cases and the demand on account of tax credit mismatch cannot be enforced coercively....\" However, I am of the view that the judgment in Sanjay Sudan (supra), does not answer the issue as to whether any 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 11 credit can be claimed by an assessee in respect of amounts deducted as TDS but not credited to the Central Government. This issue has been analysed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Om Praksh Gattani (supra) where it was held:- 14. However, the position as indicated above would not mean that on mere deduction of the tax amount at source would amount to total discharge of the tax liability so long the amount deducted is not deposited in the coffer of the Central Government. It is for this reason Section 199 of the Income-tax Act makes it clear that credit for tax deducted would be given when the amount is deducted and paid to the Central Government and a certificate of deduction is produced as furnished under Section 203 of the Income-tax Act. It is obvious that unless the amount is paid to the Central Government, the tax liability is not discharged nor it can be said that the assessee has made the payment of the tax amount payable to the Government. We find no force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner- respondent that on mere deduction of the amount at source, credit for tax deducted must be given and it cannot be withheld even though the person responsible to deduct the tax at source has not made it over to the Central Government. In our view, if that contention is accepted that is credit for tax deducted has to be given on mere deduction of the amount at source, in that event, perhaps, there would be no legal justification to treat the person responsible to deduct the amount at source as an assessee in default in respect of the tax. Once credit on account of payment of tax is given, the 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 12 tax liability will stand discharged. Any step to recover the amount of tax can be taken only in case the tax liability is not discharged and it still subsists. In this view of the matter, Shri K.P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has rightly defined the note appended by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment making it clear that credit of the amount deducted was not being given and that will be given only when evidence as to actual payment of amount to the Central Government is furnished. But this position would not legally justify initiation of recovery proceedings against the assessee from whose income-tax has been deducted at source, but the person responsible to deduct the tax fails to deposit the same in the Government treasury. The statutory scheme evolved to employ this mode of recovery of tax at source also points to the same position and in our view rightly. Otherwise a tax payer from whose income tax is liable to be deducted at source would be exposed to a great vulnerable position, if some unscrupulous persons responsible to deduct the tax at source, after deducting the amount do not deposit the amount in Government treasury, such persons should be saddled with the tax liability. Therefore, under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act it has been aptly provided that person responsible to deduct the tax would be deemed to be an assessee in default so that he can be proceeded against for recovery of the amount instead of the assessee who has already parted with the amount, but due to some commission or omission on the part of the person responsible to deduct the amount at source over whose activity he has no control, may not be subjected to double payment of tax and burnt of arduous recovery proceeding. The provisions as contained in Section 201 of the Act provides a kind of protection to the assessee where tax 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 13 liability as standing against him is not yet discharged and credit of the amount deducted cannot be given in terms of Section 199 of the Income-tax Act. 15. A perusal of section 205 of the Income-tax Act clarifies the position where it provides that where tax is deductible at source, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income. What is noticeable in this provision is that its applicability is not dependent upon the credit for tax deducted being given under Section 199 of the Income-tax Act. What is necessary for applicability of this provision is that the amount has been deducted fron the income. In case where the amount has been deducted but not paid to the Central Government that eventuality is taken care of by Section 201 of the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that under the law it may be permissible to proceed against the assessee even after deduction of the tax at source, nor the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent could persuade us to hold that merely by deduction of tax at source, credit for deduction of tax at source has to be given even though the amount may not have been made over to the Government treasury. The reason for this has already been explained by us in the discussions held in the earlier part of this judgment as the mere deduction of tax at source would not close the chapter of tax liability unless it is deposited in the Government treasury. In the result, the appeal succeeds only in part that is the note made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment not giving credit on account of deduction of tax is maintained and the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent indicated above is set aside; whereas it is maintained in so far quashing of the notices Annexures-10 and 11 dated February 20, 1991 issued 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 14 under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act is concerned.” Thus it is the view of the Gauhati High Court that while recovery to the extent of deduction may not be possible against the assessee from whose income such tax has been deducted, the assessee cannot also straight away claim credit of the tax so deducted but not paid over to the Central Government by the deductor. This also seems to be the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Aslam Checkar (supra). Here it is the admitted case of the petitioners, that the amounts deducted as TDS have not been remitted by the employer to the Central Government/Income Tax Department. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted the relief of a direction to the Income Tax Department to grant credit to the extent of tax deducted from their salaries by the entity in which they were working. They are also not entitled to a writ directing the Income Tax Department to cancel the demands pending against them even though the amounts (TDS) have not been remitted to the Central Government/Income Tax 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 15 Department. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Om Praksh Gattani (supra) as also with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Aslam Checkar (supra). This is the only way in which Sections 199 and 205 of the 1961 Act can be harmoniously interpreted. It is interesting to note that the Section heading of Section 205 uses the words ‘direct demand on assessee’ indicating that the provision only bars recovery from the assessee and does not mandate the grant of a credit. This may raise a legitimate question - is not the denial of credit a recovery? I have no doubt in my mind that denial of credit may ultimately result in a recovery, if the proceedings against the deductor under Section 201 of the 1961 Act do not end in recovery. However, this does not lead me to give any other meaning to Section 205. Thus, I find myself in disagreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sudan (supra), to the extent it holds that on deduction credit is immediately available to an 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 16 assessee from whose income such deduction has been made even if such amount has not been paid over to the Central Government/Income Tax Department by the deductor. The instructions contained in the Office Memorandum (F.No.275/29/2014-IT(B) dated 11.3.2015) only deal with the aspect of initiation of recovery proceedings against a person from whose income a tax deduction has been made and does not deal with the question as to whether credit of such unpaid amounts of TDS has to be given to such person. 6. Therefore, these writ petitions will stand disposed of holding that the petitioners are not entitled to the credit of any amount of TDS deducted from their salaries but not paid over to the Income Tax Department by the entity in which they were working. The petitioners are also not entitled to a writ directing the Income Tax Department to cancel the demands pending against them even though the amounts (TDS) have not been remitted to the Central Government/Income Tax Department. It will be open to the Income Tax Department to proceed against the entity 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 17 (2nd respondent in all these cases) for non-payment of TDS deducted from the salaries of the petitioners by treating the 2nd respondent as an assessee in default under Section 201 of the 1961 Act. If any amount is paid by the 2nd respondent or recovered from it, credit to the extent of such payment/recovery shall be given to the petitioners in these cases and demands to the extent of such recovery will be effaced. Writ petitions stand ordered accordingly. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26492/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DATED 28-08-2020 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPIES OF PAY SLIPS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTHS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-2020 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-12-2020 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10-03-2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12-03-2021 Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25-04-2024 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 19 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26493/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DATED 09-10-2020 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPIES OF PAY SLIPS OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST TO THE TECHNOPARK CEO Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-12-2020 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19-04-2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12-03-2021 Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25-04-2024 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 20 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26520/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DATED 28-08-2020 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF PAY SLIPS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTHS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-2020 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST TO THE TECHNOPARK CEO Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-12-2020 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THIS EMAIL COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12-03-2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25-04-2024 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 21 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39367/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DATED 09-10-2020 Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPIES OF PAY SLIPS OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH REQUEST TO THE TECHNOPARK CEO Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-12-2020 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THIS EMAIL COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12-03-2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15-07-2024 2025:KER:29575 WP(C) Nos.26492, 26493, 26520, 39367 & 39376 of 2024 22 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39376/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DATED 27-08-2020 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF PAY SLIPS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTHS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-2020 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST TO THE TECHNOPARK CEO Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-12-2020 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THIS EMAIL COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12-03-2021 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15-07-2024 Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF REFUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF REFUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24 Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF REFUND EVIDENCING THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24 "