The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of permanent residence in specified areas for members of scheduled tribes to qualify for tax exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

This batch of writ petitions raise a common question pertaining to the true purport of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Contending that the benefit of exemption thereunder being extendable to the petitioners, consequential reliefs by way of annulment of the impugned orders and the related assessment proceedings has been prayed for.

2. By separate orders passed at the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court had granted interim protection staying the realization of the tax assessed denying the exemption.

3.1 have heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Department and Mr. V. K. Jindal, Senior Advocate for the North Eastern Electrical Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'NEEPCO').

4. A brief narration of the individual facts is advisable.

5. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 200 (SH)/ 2002 is a registered association comprised of the members of the Scheduled tribes community serving in the departmental. According to it, the members thereof by virtue of then-status as members of the scheduled tribes under Article 366 (25) of the Constitution of India have been enjoying the benefit of tax exemption envisaged under Section 10 (26) of the Act while posted in the specified areas as mentioned thereunder. By the impugned communication dated 29.6.2001, the Income Officer (RDS), Ward-3, Shillong directed deduction of tax from the salary of the members of the petitioner association. Accordingly, the concerned authority of NEEPCO issued letters dated 20.7.2001 to the aggrieved members of the association requiring them to furnish Exemption Certificates from the Income Tax authorities with particulars for calculation and deduction of tax from their salaries. The departmental authorities having been approached for the Income Tax Exemption Certificates, by the impugned communication dated 7.8.2001 the concerned members of the association were informed, for reasons recorded therein, that they were not covered under Section 10(26) of the Act.

6. The petitioner in WP (C)No. 340 (SH)/ 2002, a member of the kachari community of Assam belonging to the recognized scheduled tribe of the State is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 23.7.2002 issued under Section 142 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shillong asking her to file the return of her income for the Assessment years 2001 -2002 and 2002-2003. Her representations before the departmental authorities contending that she was entitled to the exemption under Section 10 (26) of the Act, having failed to evoke any response and she being again asked by the impugned communication dated 8.8.2002 to submit her income tax return, she is before this Court.

7. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 14(SH)/ 2004 who, at the relevant time was serving as a Deputy Manager in the Engineering & FQA Deptt. of Regional Head Quarters of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. at Shillong belongs to Miri (Mishing) tribe, a recognized scheduled tribe of the State of Assam. She initially submitted an application to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shillong for issuing Tax Exemption Certificate under Section 10(26) of the Act. However, due to non issuance thereof, her employer started deducting tax at source from her salary every month for which she was compelled to file her return claiming therein the refund of tax deducted at source. She filed her first Return on 24.6.1999 at Shillong for the financial year ending 31.3.1999 and claimed a refund of Rs. 13,064/-. The Assessing Officer while refusing to make any refund passed the impugned assessment order dated 7.8.2000 under Section 154 of the Act and raised a demand of Rs. 8540/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner took the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which, however, remained undisposed. Her grievance is that the employer had continued to deduct tax at source from her salary compelling her to file returns of h