Sri Gurunath Akkanna vs Union Of India & Ors.

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application under Section 19 of the C.A.T. Act, 1985 has been filed claiming following reliefs:-

These reliefs are claimed on the grounds mentioned in para 5 which are following:-

The brief facts of the applicant as mentioned in the synopsis is following:-

On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant. The respondents have also filed a memo along with certain documents. Since there is a delay of 154 days in filing the application, MA No. 212/2025 for Condonation of Delay has also been filed.

The case came up for final hearing on 17.09.2025. Shri P. Kamalesan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri S. Sugumaran, learned counsel for the respondents, were present and heard.

We have carefully gone through the pleadings and documents on record and considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

The foundational facts are not in dispute. The applicant was working as an Accountant at Bidar from 2014 to 2023 and retired on superannuation on 31.12.2023. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Bidar Division, Bidar-585401, initially directed the applicant to credit Rs.16,455/- on account of non-filing of TDS 2.4 and quarterly returns in time for the year 2014-2015, Q-4, and 2016-2017, Q-2 and Q-4. Subsequently, by letter dated 13.12.2023, the Superintendent directed the applicant to credit Rs.63,162/- towards late filing of 26Q for the period from 2015-16 to 2019-20.

The applicant's case is that, apprehending that failure to credit the amount would result in departmental proceedings and delay in settlement of his retiral benefits, he credited the amount. He further contends that, under the Memo of Distribution of Work of Bidar HO, the duty of recovery and filing of TDS/26Q was not attached to the post of Accountant-I. According to him, therefore, he had neither been entrusted with that work nor could he be held responsible for the non-recovery or delayed filing of TDS/26Q.

The applicant has further relied upon SB Order No. 14/2015, particularly para 1.3, concerning the discontinuance of handling of Agent Commission Schedules and ACG-17 by SBCO. He contends that SB Order No. 04/2021, issued on 08.03.2021, subsequently provided in para 1.5 that the Accounts Branch of the HO would continue to prepare the schedule of Agent Commission paid and TDS recovered from agents through the respective General Ledgers in CSI and would also file the TDS returns with the Income Tax Department as per the existing procedure. On that basis, the applicant submits that the responsibility for recovery of TDS and filing of the returns was incorporated in SB Order No. 04/2021 and could not be retrospectively fastened upon him for the period from 2015 to 2020.

The principal issue arising for consideration is whether the responsibility for recovery of TDS and filing of the relevant returns could validly be attributed to the applicant for the period in question, notwithstanding his reliance upon SB Order No. 14/2015 and the subsequent provision contained in SB Order No. 04/2021. The applicant's contention proceeds on the premise that SB Order No. 04/2021 created a new responsibility and that applying it to an earlier period would amount to retrospective operation.

It is not in dispute that the applicant was functioning as an Accountant/Account Officer in the concerned office. The issue, however, cannot be determined solely by asking whether SB Order No. 14/2015 expressly enumerated each individual activity relating to TDS. Administrative instructions cannot invariably be expected to set out every constituent or incidental activity forming part of a generic function. Where an activity is intrinsically connected with the accounting function, the absence of a separate express enumeration of that activity does not, by itself, establish that no officer in the Accounts Branch was responsible for it. If the applicant asserts that the responsibility lay with another officer or branch, it was incumbent upon him to identify the person or branch to whom that responsibility was actually assigned.

The applicant has relied upon SB Order No. 04/2021 with F.No.-116/15/2013-SB(Pt SBCO) dated 08.03.2021, particularly para 1.5, which states that “SAS and MPKBY Agents Commissions credit transactions are not included in Common List of Transactions and hence there will be no vouchers for these transactions. The Accounts branch of the HO will continue to prepare the schedule of Agent Commissions paid and TDS recovered from Agents through respective General Ledgers in CSI. The Accounts branch of the HO will also file the TDS returns with Income Tax Department as per the existing procedure.” The significance of the expression “as per the existing procedure” is material. It indicates continuity of an existing arrangement rather than necessarily the creation of an entirely new responsibility on 08.03.2021. The provision can therefore reasonably be understood as recording or clarifying the existing procedure.

We are, therefore, unable to accept the applicant's contention that the mere absence of an express reference to TDS filing in SB Order No. 14/2015 necessarily relieved the Accounts Branch, and consequently the applicant, of responsibility for the same. SB Order No. 04/2021 is relevant not because it is being applied retrospectively to create a new obligation, but because its reference to the “existing procedure” supports the conclusion that the relevant function was already being performed as an Accounts Branch function. The applicant has not placed material before us establishing that the responsibility was specifically assigned to some other officer or branch during the material period.

The applicant has also relied upon the letter of the Postmaster dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure A4), bearing the subject – Regarding fixing up of responsibility and recovery of amount for late filing of e-TDS – to contend that the allocation of responsibility was not clear. The mere fact that an individual item of work is not separately set out in such a communication cannot, by itself, establish that the work was left unassigned. The material on record, considered as a whole, supports the conclusion that filing of the TDS returns was treated as an Accounts Branch function.

The applicant's conduct is also a relevant circumstance. He was put on notice regarding the non-filing of TDS as early as 22.09.2020, by Office Letter No. No.BDR/E1/10/IT/Dlgs/19-20, in respect of Rs.16,455/-. His retirement was only on 31.12.2023. Thus, the applicant had more than three years after the first notice to raise a specific and contemporaneous objection that the work did not fall within his duties and to identify the officer or branch responsible for it. No such objection or identification is shown from the material before us. His subsequent credit of the amount in 2023, though not by itself determinative of legal liability, is a circumstance consistent with the Department's case that the function was understood to fall within the Accounts Branch.

Further, there is an order dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure A6), Memo No. BDR/E1/10/eTDS/D Basavaraj/Dlgs/2023 with the subject – Uploading of e-TDS by DDO-Late filing of e-TDS (26Q) regarding, which records the payment of Rs.63,162/- by the applicant. It also records that the applicant had intimated in his letter dated 21.12.2023 that he had credited the amount of Rs.63,162/- at Bidar HO vide Document No. 4838940785 in response to Office Letter No. BDR/E1/10/eTDS/D Basavaraj/Dlgs/2023 dated 13.12.2023. The said order further records that “from the above, it is clear that you have failed to file the eTDS (26Q) in time, which is highly irregular. Keeping in view, you are left off with severe warning this time and be more careful in future.” The record thus shows that, following payment of the amount, the Department did not initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the applicant.

We may now consider the grounds raised by the applicant seriatim. In para 5(a), the applicant states that he worked as Accountant No. 1 at Bidar from 2015 to 2023 and that he was alleged to have failed to recover e-TDS Q-26 and file the returns with the Income Tax Department, resulting in interest or penalty for delayed filing. These are essentially factual assertions and do not, by themselves, furnish a separate ground for interference.

In para 5(b), the applicant relies upon SB Order No. 14/2015 issued by the Dept of Posts dated 14.10.2015 and contends that the responsibility of TDS was not with the Accounts Branch. As discussed above, the absence of an express reference to every aspect of TDS work cannot, by itself, be construed as an exclusion of that function from the Accounts Branch. The applicant has also not identified any other officer or branch upon whom the relevant responsibility was specifically placed during the material period. We therefore find no merit in this contention.

The subsequent SB Order No. 04/2021 dated 08.03.2021, particularly para 1.5, reinforces this conclusion. It expressly provides that the Accounts Branch of the HO will file TDS returns with the Income Tax Department “as per the existing procedure”. The reference to an “existing procedure” indicates continuity of an established practice and does not necessarily signify the creation of a new responsibility from that date. The provision therefore supports the conclusion that the filing function was already being performed as an Accounts Branch function.

In para 5(c), the applicant submits that, by SB Order No. 04/2021, the work of recovering TDS from Agents was vested in the Accounts Branch of the HO and that, from 2015 to 2021, such work was not vested in that Branch. This submission again assumes that SB Order No. 04/2021 created the responsibility. As already held, the reference in para 1.5 to the “existing procedure” indicates that the filing of TDS returns was an ongoing procedure. If the applicant contends that another officer or branch was responsible during the earlier period, he has not established the same from the record.

In para 5(d), the applicant submits that no executive order can be implemented retrospectively unless so specified and that SB Order No. 04/2021 contains no such provision. The submission proceeds on an incorrect premise. The respondents are not applying SB Order No. 04/2021 retrospectively so as to create a new liability for the period from 2015 to 2020. Rather, the Department's case is that the relevant responsibility already formed part of the existing procedure of the Accounts Branch and was subsequently stated in express terms in SB Order No. 04/2021. The issue, therefore, is not one of retrospective application of a new executive instruction, but of determining the responsibility that existed during the relevant period. This contention consequently does not assist the applicant.

In para 5(e), the applicant relies upon the MDW of Bidar dated 25.08.2009 and submits that the work of deducting TDS was not vested with Accountant No. I and that there was no specific order entrusting him with the work. The relevant issue, however, is whether, having regard to the functional allocation of work in the Accounts Branch and the existing procedure, the applicant was responsible for the work in question. The applicant had an opportunity to raise this precise objection when he received the first notice dated 22.09.2020 in Office Letter No. No.BDR/E1/10/IT/Dlgs/19-20 (Annexure A2). There is nothing on record to show that he then disputed the attribution of responsibility or identified the person or branch responsible. His subsequent plea, raised only after the recovery was made and after his retirement, therefore carries considerably less evidentiary weight. We accordingly find no merit in this ground.

In para 5(f), the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.12.2014 in State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012 dated 18.12.2014, contending that recovery from employees belonging to Group C and D and from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year is impermissible. We have carefully considered the decision in State of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012 dated 18.12.2014. The principle relied upon by the applicant concerns recovery of excess payments made to employees in the circumstances considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The present case, however, stands on a materially different footing. The amount of Rs.63,162/- was not paid to the applicant as salary, allowance or any other benefit by the Government; rather, it represents the amount attributed to the Departmental loss arising from delayed filing of TDS returns and the consequential liability towards interest/penalty. The recovery in the present case is thus sought to compensate the employer for a loss allegedly occasioned by failure to discharge an official function, and is not a case of recovery of an excess payment made by the employer to the employee. The ratio of Rafiq Masih therefore cannot be mechanically extended to the present factual situation.

In the present case, the applicant, after receiving notice in 2020, did not contemporaneously dispute that the relevant function was part of his responsibility or identify the person or branch responsible for it. He subsequently credited the amount of Rs.63,162/- in 2023. While such payment by itself cannot constitute an admission of legal liability, it is a material circumstance which, when considered along with the existing procedure and the applicant's conduct, supports the conclusion that the function was understood to fall within his official responsibilities. Since the recovery is of a different nature from that considered in Rafiq Masih, and the factual circumstances are materially distinguishable, the said judgment does not render the impugned recovery impermissible.

In para 5(g), the applicant submits that he was a Group ‘C’ employee who retired on 31.12.2023 and that the direction to credit Rs.63,162/- was issued on 13.12.2023. He therefore contends that the recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. We are unable to accept this contention. The mere fact that the applicant belonged to Group ‘C’ and was on the verge of retirement does not, in the facts of the present case, bring the recovery within the principle laid down in Rafiq Masih, since the nature of the recovery here is materially different from the recovery of excess payments considered in that case. The amount represents the loss attributed to delayed filing of TDS returns, and the applicant has not established that the impugned recovery falls within the category of recovery prohibited by the said judgment.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the applicant has not established that the responsibility for filing the relevant TDS returns was outside the scope of his official duties during the material period. SB Order No. 04/2021 is not being applied retrospectively to create a new liability; rather, its reference to the “existing procedure”, read with the nature of the Accounts Branch functions and the applicant's conduct, supports the conclusion that the relevant responsibility already existed. The applicant also failed to raise a contemporaneous objection when the issue was first brought to his notice in 2020. His reliance upon Rafiq Masih is misplaced because the present recovery is not one of excess payment of salary or other dues made to the employee, but relates to the loss attributed to delayed filing of TDS returns. Consequently, the applicant has not made out any ground warranting interference with the impugned order or refund of Rs.63,162/-.

Accordingly, we pass the following orders:

OA along with MA 212/2025 for the Condonation of Delay are dismissed.

No order as to costs.