2021 (7) TMI 515 - HC - Income Tax

Credit the Advance Tax paid by the petitioner and the Tax deducted at Source lying to the credit of the Petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that mixed question of facts and law is to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences to be produced by the respective parties before the Competent Authority. High Court cannot conduct a Roving enquiry with reference to the disputed facts in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such an exercise is to be done by the Competent Authority by affording an opportunity to the parties concerned. In the present case, the application of law is to be made with reference to the facts as well as the legal principles laid down with reference to the provisions of the Act. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the relief as such sought for cannot be granted in these Writ Petitions to the petitioner, and the adjudication is required for forming an opinion to decide the issue. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is suffice if a direction issued to the respondent to consider the issues raised by the petitioner and take a decision and pass orders.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks direction to credit Advance Tax and Tax deducted at Source for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Analysis:

1. Relief sought by Petitioner:
The petitioner requested the respondent to credit the Advance Tax and Tax deducted at Source totaling to ?28,02,365 for the mentioned assessment years under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Additionally, the petitioner sought issuance of Form No.4 certifying full payment of tax, surcharge, and penalty under Section 187 of the Finance Act, 2016.

2. Contentions of Petitioner:
The petitioner had not filed income tax returns for the specified assessment years but had paid the Advance Tax. An application was submitted under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, which the respondent did not act upon. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court and subsequent dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court of India.

3. Respondent's Arguments:
The respondent disputed the petitioner's entitlement to relief, citing judgments from the Bombay High Court as a basis for their argument against granting the relief sought.

4. Court's Opinion and Decision:
The Court opined that the matter involves a mixed question of facts and law, requiring adjudication based on evidence and documents to be presented before the Competent Authority. It emphasized that the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into disputed facts in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the respondent to consider the issues raised by the petitioner, make a decision, and pass orders expeditiously within twelve weeks, refraining from coercive action against the petitioner until a final decision is made.

5. Final Disposition:
The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with the aforementioned directions, without imposing any costs. It instructed the petitioner to submit necessary documents and a copy of the order to the respondent within a week. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.