JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The New India Assurance Company, that was the 1st respondent in WP(C) No.8280 of 2013, is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.02.2023 of a learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The Writ Petition was filed by one Ayisha, who was the widow of one Ahammed, who had died in a road accident. In OP(MV) No. 2402 of 2006 that was preferred in connection therewith before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 10.01.2013, assessed a compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till the date of realisation in favour of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Insurance Company accepted the amount and decided to pay the compensation awarded to the writ petitioner. At the time of making the payment of the interest portion, the appellant herein deducted tax at source at the rate of 20% on the interest component finding that as per the extent provisions of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act it was required to make such a deduction when the interest payment exceeded Rs.50,000/-. 3. In the Writ Petition that was filed, the challenge was essentially to the notice issued to the petitioner by the appellant herein intimating her of the deduction of tax that was effected from the interest amounts mentioned in the award. The petitioner also impugned Ext.P3 communication that was received from the appellant, intimating the petitioner of the payments effected based on the award, through four cheques that were drawn on the Corporation Bank, Thrissur. The prayer in the Writ Petition was essentially for quashing the communications issued to the petitioner and for issuing directions to the appellant herein to pay the interest amount without deducting tax at source. 4. The prayer in the Writ Petition was essentially for quashing the communications issued to the petitioner and for issuing directions to the appellant herein to pay the interest amount without deducting tax at source. 4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court that had, in turn, relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Managing Director, Tail Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited v. Chinnadurai [(2016) 70 Taxman.com 53(Madras)] to find that compensation awarded on the interest accruing therein from the compensation cannot be subjected to TDS and the same cannot be insisted to be paid to the tax authorities since the compensation and the interest awarded do not fall under the term 'income' as defined under the Income Tax Act. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF) [ (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC)]. In the ultimate analysis, the learned Judge found that the communication of the appellant asking the petitioner to submit documents for deduction of tax at source on the interest component was illegal, and therefore, liable to be quashed. It was also declared that there could be no liability to deduct tax at source on payment of interest over and above the compensation amount awarded under orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 5. Before us, it is the submission of the learned Senior counsel Sri. George Cherian that the declaration by the learned Single Judge, as a general proposition, that TDS cannot be deducted in the circumstances envisaged under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act is wholly illegal and cannot be legally sustained. In particular, it is pointed out that while there was no clarity in the impugned judgment as regards what had to be done consequent to the appellant having deducted the tax at source on the interest amounts paid to the writ petitioner and having made over the said payments to the Income Tax Department, which held the same to the credit of the writ petitioner, it was also apparent that the writ petitioner herself had not taken any steps as mandated under the Income Tax Act for claiming the refund of the tax amounts that were credited to her account with the Income Tax Department. 6. We have also heard Sri. 6. We have also heard Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, and Sri. A.R Nimod, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. 7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that in the light of the specific provisions of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, which mandated that the tax had to be deducted at source on income paid by way of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in situations where the amount of such income or as the case may be, the aggregate amounts of such income paid during the financial year exceeded 50,000/- rupees, it cannot be stated as a general proposition that such amounts would not attract the procedure of tax deduction at source. That would tantamount to ignoring the express provisions of the Statute. In our view, the statutory provisions under the Income Tax Act clearly provide that where an assessee seeks an exemption from deduction at source, of amounts due to him that are specified as liable to tax deduction at source, then it is for such assessee to approach the Assessing Officer under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act for a certificate declaring that no tax shall be deducted at source from amounts that are likely to form part of the assessee's income. Alternatively, merely because tax is deducted at source in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the amount so credited to the account of the assessee with the Income Tax Department, it does not follow that such amount has been appropriated from the assessee by way of tax under the Income Tax Act. For an assessee, who claims that no amount of tax is payable by him/her the option then is to file a return of income, including a nil return as the case may be, and claim a refund of the tax deducted at source. 8. On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the writ petitioner did not seek a refund of the tax deducted at source from the interest amounts that were awarded to her. 8. On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the writ petitioner did not seek a refund of the tax deducted at source from the interest amounts that were awarded to her. We also note that in the light of the express statutory provisions, which indicate that interest on compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is also taxable as income under the Income Tax Act, a general declaration that such interest amounts would not attract the definition of income for the purposes of the Income Tax Act was not warranted more so in a Writ Petition where the statutory provision (Section 194A) itself was not impugned. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it declares, as a general proposition of law, and in the absence of a challenge to the statutory provisions, that there shall be no liability of TDS on the payment of interest over and above the amount of compensation awarded under the orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. As already noted above, the aspect as to whether in a particular case, the interest amounts received over and above the compensation amount would qualify as income in relation to any particular assessee would depend on the facts and circumstances in each case, and on whether or not an assessee has complied with the statutory procedure required for avoiding a tax deduction at source. The Writ Appeal is disposed as above.