2021 (1) TMI 1088 - HC - Income Tax

Refunds claim along with interest accrued thereon u/s 244A - what remedies are available under the Act in respect of an error committed by the Tax Authority in calculating the refund? - statutory alternate remedy - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any specific provision and submits that these remedies lie before this Court. We would not like to be drawn into the factual controversy. Particularly, since there is a dispute regarding the computation of refund amount, a mandamus, as prayed for, cannot be issued to the respondents. In our view the Income tax Act not only creates rights and liabilities, but also provides for a complete machinery for enforcing the same, as well as a mechanism to challenge the orders of the Revenue authorities. Thus, the Petitioner must only avail the remedy as provided for by the statute. The fact that we have a wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not mean that we can disregard the substantive provisions of the statute and the mechanism provided thereunder. We are thus inclined to dispose of the present petition, observing that the petitioner shall be free to pursue its departmental/statutory remedy as available in law with respect to any grievance regarding the calculation of refund made by the respondents.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking directions for refunds for AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, dispute over refund calculation, availability of remedies for errors in refund calculation.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking refunds for AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, along with interest, due to the late husband. The respondents filed a counter affidavit detailing the amounts adjusted and refunds credited to the petitioner's account. The Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue stated that refunds for both years had been paid to the legal heir and credited to the petitioner's account, supported by System Generated Screenshots. She explained the computation and appeal effect orders for both years, asserting that no further amount was due as refunds with interest had been granted under section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's counsel disputed this, claiming that the refunds were only partly paid, and errors in calculation were ignored. The petitioner had also submitted a representation to rectify the errors.

The Court inquired about remedies for errors in refund calculation under the Act, to which the petitioner's counsel could not provide specific provisions and suggested that remedies lie before the Court. The Court declined to issue a mandamus due to the factual dispute on refund computation. Emphasizing that the Income Tax Act provides a mechanism to challenge Revenue authorities' orders, the Court held that the petitioner should pursue departmental/statutory remedies available in law regarding any refund calculation grievances. The Court highlighted that its jurisdiction under Article 226 does not allow disregarding statutory provisions and mechanisms provided under the Act. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue remedies available under the law for any refund calculation disputes.