New Delhi. The Supreme Court has rejected the petition filed against Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The Supreme Court has rejected the petition and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court. Senior lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had filed a PIL against TDS. In his petition, Upadhyay had described TDS as arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional.
Read :- Relief to Rahul Gandhi from Supreme Court in defamation case, trial court proceedings stayed
Supreme Court advised to go to High Court
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected the petition and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court. During the hearing, the CJI said that 'We cannot hear this petition. It is very poorly designed. You can go to the High Court. This has been upheld in some decisions. We will not consider it.
What is TDS?
TDS or Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was introduced to prevent tax evasion. This is a way by which the government collects taxes directly from the source of income. This is a type of tax in which, before paying the salary, interest, rent or consultancy fees received by a person or organization, a fixed amount is deducted as tax and it is immediately sent to the government. TDS simplifies the process of collecting taxes for the government and also helps in preventing tax evasion. The TDS amount is refunded later when the taxpayer files his income tax return.
Read :- Cricketer Rinku Singh got married to SP MP Priya Saroj, will soon get married.
TDS was criticized on these grounds in the petition
In the petition, Upadhyay argued that TDS is a complex process, which requires legal and financial expertise to understand. Many taxpayers do not understand this. The petition further states that uneducated or economically weaker persons find it difficult to understand this technological framework and this leads to their exploitation. This is a violation of the constitutional right to equality. Upadhyay also said that many taxpayers, especially those from rural or economically weaker backgrounds, are often deprived of refunds, giving undue advantage to the government.
Comments are closed.