ORDER : G.R. UDHWANI, J. 1. The petitioner-Insurance Company inter alia has prayed for following reliefs: "17(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to call for Record and Proceedings of MAC Petition No. 220 of 2007 from the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the orders of the learned Tribunal rendered on 12.04.2019 (Annexure-B) and 20.06.2019 (Annexure-C) and further be pleased to direct the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to follow the guidelines of TDS issued by honourable Division Bench of the honourable High Court of Gujarat in the case of Prafulchandra Narberam Ladhani vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2007(2) GLR 1484 : 2007 ACJ 1897 (Guj.)." 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are thus: 2.1 M.A.C. Petition No. 220 of 2007 was lodged claiming the compensation on account of death due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ.6.V.8924. The claim petition was partly allowed on 09.02.2018 awarding a sum of Rs. 14,90,088/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2.2 On 07.03.2019, the Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs. 25,83,808 towards the award with interest and cost with the Tribunal by account payee cheque dated 05.03.2019. An application, therefore, was made in the light of Prafulchandra Narbheram Ladhani v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [ 2007(2) GLR 1484 ], which inter alia laid down certain directions to be followed by the Tribunal for deposit of the TDS amount. By order dated 12.04.2019, the Tribunal refused to accept the cheque which was towards Tax Deduction at Source being in sum of Rs. 2,20,110/- holding that Prafulchandra (supra) did not issue any direction to the Tribunal to accept the TDS amount. 3. It appears that the aforesaid calculation of Rs. 2,20,110/- was made by the Insurance Company in absence of the Pan Cards of the claimants. Subsequently, when they provided the Pan Cards, the TDS was deducted at the rate of 10% and on 20.06.2019 two cheques being in the sum of Rs. 1,01,702/- (without TDS deduction) and another in the sum of Rs. 1,01,700/- (after deduction of TDS) in terms of direction issued in Prafulchandra (supra) were sought to be deposited with the Tribunal. Subsequently, when they provided the Pan Cards, the TDS was deducted at the rate of 10% and on 20.06.2019 two cheques being in the sum of Rs. 1,01,702/- (without TDS deduction) and another in the sum of Rs. 1,01,700/- (after deduction of TDS) in terms of direction issued in Prafulchandra (supra) were sought to be deposited with the Tribunal. The Tribunal again on 20.06.2019 refused to accept the cheques of TDS amount principally on the four grounds (1) Hansagauri Prafulchandra Ladhani v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [ 2007 ACJ 1897 (Gujarat)], New India Insurance Company Limited v. Bhoyabhai Haribhai Bharvad [ 2017 ACJ 1727 (Gujarat)] and Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Kirshnakumar Munshiram Agrawal [2019 ACJ 736] did not issue any direction to Tribunal to accept the cheque of TDS deducted by the Insurance Company, (2) the Insurance Company was not justified deducting the TDS, (3) the exercise of splitting the interest amount over the relevant financial year was not carried out by the Insurance Company, and (4) deduction of the tax at source was the legal obligation imposed upon the insurer in the facts of the present case, and therefore, if, after such deduction, the case for refund exists, the obligation would be cast upon the insurer to procure the refund for him and not upon the claimant. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the cases referred to by the Tribunal in Para 3 of its impugned orders, this Court passes the following order: 4.1 In Hansagauri which is also referred to as Prafulchandra Narbheram Ladhani (Deceased) as also P.N. Ladhani; following directions in Para 14 were issued by this Court: "14. It is necessary to obviate such a situation in future for other claimants who may be awarded compensation with interest thereon, and the amount of interest being deposited exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, but who may not be liable to have any tax deducted at source as per the interpretation placed by us on the provisions of Section 194A of the Act. It is necessary to obviate such a situation in future for other claimants who may be awarded compensation with interest thereon, and the amount of interest being deposited exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, but who may not be liable to have any tax deducted at source as per the interpretation placed by us on the provisions of Section 194A of the Act. We, therefore, direct that - I. The Insurance Companies or the owners of the motor vehicles depositing the amounts in compliance with the awards of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals shall- (a) first spread the interest amount over to the relevant financial years for the period from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit. (b) thereafter, if the interest for any particular financial year exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, separately deposit before the Tribunal the amount liable to be deducted at source under the provisions of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such amount shall not, however, straightaway, be paid over to the Income-tax department. (c) produce before the Tribunal a statement of computation of interest by spreading the amount over the relevant years from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit if the interest for any particular financial year exceeds Rs. 50,000/and also request the Tribunal to treat the amount as a separate deposit. II.(i) The Tribunal shall take into account the principles laid down in this judgment and ensure that the amount of interest accrued each year is apportioned amongst the claimants on year to year basis. (ii) If the interest payable to any claimant for any particular financial year exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, the Tribunal shall permit the Insurance Companies/owners to pay over the amount liable to be deducted at source under Section 193(3)(ix) of the Income-tax Department in respect of that particular claimant for that particular year, without prejudice to the claimant's case that he is not liable to pay any income-tax for that year. (iii)for the financial year/s for which the interest payable to the concerned claimant does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-, the Tribunal may permit such claimant to withdraw the amount deposited as per direction I(b) without producing the certificate from the concerned income-tax authority that there is no income-tax liability on the interest which has accrued on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 50,000/-, the Tribunal may permit such claimant to withdraw the amount deposited as per direction I(b) without producing the certificate from the concerned income-tax authority that there is no income-tax liability on the interest which has accrued on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) It is clarified that the amount other than the amount liable to be deducted at source under Section 194A(3)(ix) shall be invested/disbursed by the Tribunal. III. When the claimants make applications/ representations before the authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for refund of the amount deducted under the provisions of Section 194A(3) (ix) of the Act, the concerned authority shall decide such applications/representations within six months from the date of receipt of the applications/representations." 5. Needless to say that initial obligation to deduct the tax at source in terms of 194A of the Income-tax Act is upon the insurer and the said provision would be complied with only if the tax is deducted at source and paid to the income tax authority by Insurance Company. It appears that keeping that in mind, this Court in direction No. II (ii) obligated the insurer to obtain necessary permission from the Tribunal for compliance with Section 194A of the Act; of course without prejudice to the claimant's case that he is not liable to pay any income-tax for relevant year. 6. This Court made the things clear in direction No. III in Para 14 which reads as under: "III. When the claimants make applications/ representations before the authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for refund of the amount deducted under the provisions of Section 194A(3) (ix) of the Act, the concerned authority shall decide such applications/representations within six months from the date of receipt of the applications /representations." 7. Thus, an obligation cast upon the Insurance Company is sought to be fulfilled through the said direction, both in the interest of the claimant and the insurer. 8. The things are made further clear in clause No. II(iv) wherein, direction is given to invest/disburse the amount other than the TDS. 9. Having regard to the directions contained in Para 14-I(b) above, the Tribunal is not right in holding that it was not under the directions to accept the deposits in regard to TDS amount from the Insurance Company. The things are made further clear in clause No. II(iv) wherein, direction is given to invest/disburse the amount other than the TDS. 9. Having regard to the directions contained in Para 14-I(b) above, the Tribunal is not right in holding that it was not under the directions to accept the deposits in regard to TDS amount from the Insurance Company. In the above directions very clearly separate deposits in regard to the TDS is contemplated; therefore, the insured would be under an obligation to make such separate deposits. However, conjoint reading of the direction in Para 14 makes it clear that the deposits in terms of Para 14-I(b) would be only for the purpose of the necessary permission in terms of Para 14 II(ii) and once such permission is granted by the Tribunal, obviously, the insurer would take back the separate cheque of TDS amount and pay it to the income tax authority and it would be for the claimant to make out a case for refund in terms of Para 14-III. Rest of the amount would be invested in terms of Para 14 II(iv). 10. Needless to say that deposit in terms of Para 14-I(b) is meant for the income-tax authority, and therefore, the cheque must be drawn in the name of income-tax authority which, after permission (supra) will have to be delivered to the insured for complying with Section 194A of the Income-Tax Act. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the outer limit to comply with the Section 194A of the Income-Tax Act is 30 days from the date of deduction of the tax at source. He, therefore, urged that the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the application for permission (supra) within stipulated period. 12. This Court is inclined to accept the submissions from the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the directions contained in Para 14 in relation to TDS are for smooth discharge of the liability under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act as also the convenience of the claimant to apply for refund if necessary. The permission in terms of Para 14 II(ii) thus seems to be of a formal nature and not adjudicatory, inasmuch as adjudication can be done only by the income-tax department when the refund is claimed. The permission in terms of Para 14 II(ii) thus seems to be of a formal nature and not adjudicatory, inasmuch as adjudication can be done only by the income-tax department when the refund is claimed. It is, therefore, needless to say that unless the computation of the interest liable to tax is questioned; normally permission under the said directions should be given as a matter of course. It is, therefore, directed that the Tribunal will consider permission (supra) within 10 days of the receipt of the application accompanied with statement as indicated in Hansagauri (supra). 13. In above view of the matter, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall, make a fresh application to the Tribunal in accordance with the observations made in Hansagauri (supra) as also observations made herein. 14. This order shall be circulated either by soft copy or by hard copy to all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State of Gujarat.