9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 407 - HC - Income TaxRefund amount remission - jurisdiction as per the Code - whom should the refund amount (ordered to be paid by the Income Tax Department, i.e., revenue) be remitted to? - respondent no.4 is undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), before the National Company Law Tribunal - NCLT has appointed a Resolution Professional( RP ) - HELD THAT - RP is working under the sway of the NCLT, we are of the view that, the petitioner needs to approach the NCLT for appropriate directions. Our initial, albeit prima facie view, that the revenue could take a call on the matter, i.e., as to who is the rightful recipient of the refund has undergone a change in view of what has been brought forth by the RP. That being said, it is not inferred from this, that the RP, is right. The petitioner needs to be heard and the NCLT, as observed above, has the jurisdiction as per the Code to rule on the issue Petitioner Mr. Jolly was granted time to obtain instructions in this behalf. Mr. Jolly has obtained instructions. Mr. Jolly submits that he will withdraw the writ petition, and approach the NCLT with an appropriate application. Mr. Jolly says the only concern that the petitioner has, at this stage, is with regard to the time that may be taken for the resolution of the petitioner s grievance. Given this position, Ms. Satpal says that, if the petitioner were to approach the NCLT, the RP would assist the NCLT in an early disposal of the petitioner s application. Mr. Sharma submits likewise. In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues involved: Determination of the rightful recipient of a refund amount between the petitioner and respondent no.4, both claiming the amount.
Analysis: 1. Identification of Claimants: The primary issue in this case is to ascertain to whom the refund amount of ?71,02,982 should be remitted. The two claimants are the petitioner and respondent no.4, who is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) before the NCLT. The RP appointed by NCLT, Mr. Subhash Kumar Kundra, represents respondent no.4. 2. Background and Claim: The petitioner claims that the refund is related to the assessment year 2001-2002. Following a demerger scheme sanctioned by the Court in 2002, the textile business of the petitioner vested in respondent no.4. This forms the basis for the petitioner's claim on the refund amount. 3. Communication and Responses: The petitioner pointed out a communication from the revenue stating that the refund amount was wrongly remitted to respondent no.4, CLC Industries Ltd., whereas it belonged to the petitioner, CLC & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the RP submitted an affidavit in response to the petitioner's claim, and the revenue withdrew the earlier communication. 4. Decision and Jurisdiction: Considering the RP's involvement and the NCLT's jurisdiction over the matter due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings, the Court suggested that the petitioner should seek appropriate directions from the NCLT. The petitioner agreed to withdraw the writ petition and approach the NCLT for resolution. The RP assured to assist in expediting the process due to the petitioner's deadline under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, expiring soon. 5. Dismissal and Liberty to Approach NCLT: The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to approach the NCLT with a formal application as per the law. It emphasized the need for an early resolution by the NCLT once the petitioner initiates the process. This judgment highlights the importance of proper jurisdiction and legal procedures in resolving disputes over financial matters, especially in cases involving insolvency proceedings and tax-related refunds.
|
