2018 (8) TMI 1473 - HC - Income Tax

Refund of tax - Rate of TDS - Writ petition - Counsel for the petitioner initially had reservation, but during the course of hearing has agreed to the suggestion given by the counsel for the respondents with hope and trust that there would be independent application of mind by the Commissioner on the facts and circumstances of case without being influenced by the observations on the administrative side. He submits that in case of an adverse order, the petitioner should be given liberty to challenge the order in accordance with law. He also submits that the respondents must adhere to the time schedule. Taking the statements on record, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner, if required and necessary, to challenge the order to be passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner will adhere to the time schedule of 20 days from today.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Miscommunication regarding refund amount and tax deduction rate
2. Outstanding demands from assessment years
3. Assurance of detailed consideration by Commissioner
4. Petitioner's reservation and agreement with Commissioner's suggestion
5. Liberty to challenge Commissioner's order
6. Adherence to time schedule
7. Appearance before Commissioner

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of miscommunication regarding a refund amount and tax deduction rate. The petitioner's counsel clarified the misunderstanding and withdrew the earlier statement made about not pressing for a refund if the tax deduction rate was reduced. A chart was presented to support the factual position.

2. The judgment also deals with outstanding demands from assessment years, specifically from 2009-10 onwards. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that these demands have either been paid and are refundable or have a stay order from the High Court or Tribunal after examining merits.

3. The judgment ensures that the Commissioner will thoroughly examine all issues and contentions raised by the petitioner without being influenced by any administrative observations. The Commissioner is directed to pass a reasoned order within 20 days, emphasizing independent application of mind.

4. The petitioner initially had reservations but eventually agreed to the suggestion given by the respondents' counsel. There is an expectation of independent consideration by the Commissioner without influence from administrative observations. The petitioner retains the liberty to challenge any adverse order in accordance with the law.

5. The judgment grants the petitioner the liberty to challenge the Commissioner's order if necessary. It also mandates the Commissioner to adhere to the specified time schedule of 20 days from the judgment date, ensuring timely resolution of the matter.

6. To expedite the process, the judgment directs an authorized representative of the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner on a specific date with the required papers and documents. This step aims to minimize delays in the resolution of the case.

7. Finally, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs, indicating that no further financial penalties or obligations are imposed on either party. The judgment concludes with a directive for the issuance of necessary documents under the signature of the Court Master.