9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent no.1. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [ 2011 (11) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the said judgment is not even remotely applicable to the facts of this case. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on the said judgment is totally misplaced. The respondents are directed to refund a sum of ₹ 833,04,88,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of uploading of this order without fail. - WP-LD-VC NO. 81 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2020 - R. D. DHANUKA AND MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ. Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Paras Savla, Mr. Harsh Shah i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner. Mr. Sham Walve for the Respondents. ORAL ORDER :- (Per R. D. Dhanuka, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Mistri learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sham Walve learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. 3. Mr. Mistri learned senior counsel for the petitioner presses interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) and refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outstanding, the respondents would be entitled to invoke the requisite power under Section 245 of the Act to set off the amount of refund payable in respect of assessment year 2014-15 against tax remaining payable. 7. The Hon ble Supreme Court accordingly held that since requisite action was not even initiated, the Hon ble Supreme Court said nothing in that respect. The respondents were accordingly directed that the amount of ₹ 733 Crores shall be refunded to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the said order subject to any proceedings that the Revenue may deem appropriate in accordance with law. The respondents were directed to conclude the proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act in respect of assessment year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 as early as possible. Except those directions issued in paragraph No.23 of the said judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court and dismissed the said Civil Appeal without any order as to costs. 8. Pursuant to the said judgment and order dated 29th April, 2020 delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for seeking refund and compliance of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The respondents however, did not refund any amount to the petitioner including ₹ 833,04,88,000/- which according to the respondents was due and payable to the petitioner. The petitioner thus, filed this petition inter alia praying for various reliefs. Pursuant to the order dated 23rd June, 2020 passed by this Court, respondents filed affidavit-in-reply dated 24th June, 2020. The petitioner filed affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 25th June, 2020. 12. Mr. Mistri learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2377 of 2020 and various annexures to the petition including the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 28th May, 2020 holding that the net refundable amount of ₹ 833,04,88,000/- was due and payable to the petitioner. He submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court though had directed the respondents to refund amount of ₹ 733 Crores to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the said order subject to any proceedings that the Revenue may deem appropriate to initiate in accordance with law, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraph No.5 of the affidavit-in-reply is not applicable to the petitioner insofar as refund for the assessment year 2014-15 is concerned. The said provision would apply only for the assessment year 2017-2018 onwards. He submits that the respondent No.1 has issued refund of approximately ₹ 706 crores pertaining to assessment year 2017-2018 to the petitioner in pursuant to the decisions of this Court. The respondent No.1 did not challenge the said order passed by this Court before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel submits that proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 245 of the Act has been already ended in view of the common order dated 28th May, 2020 passed under Section 154 read with Section 245 of the Act. He submits that as on today, there is no demand for the assessment year 2016-2017. 17. Learned senior counsel submits that there is no provision in the Act, which allows the respondents to withheld refunds in anticipation of tax determination which may arise in future. 18. Mr. Walve learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, strongly pressed in service Section 241A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and would submit that sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h April, 2020 had already directed the respondents to refund a sum of ₹ 733 Crores to the petitioner however subject to any proceedings that the Revenue may deem appropriate to initiate in accordance with law. The respondent No.1 had already issued two notices dated 8th May, 2020 and 13th May, 2020 respectively inter alia seeking adjustment of the refund in sum of ₹ 953,75,27,138/- against the refund payable to the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15. 22. A perusal of the order dated 28th May, 2020 passed by the respondent No.1 clearly indicates that said order was the common order passed in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Act and also under Section 245 of the Act. Adjustment of the alleged tax dues which was required to be made according to the respondents against the refund amount due to the petitioner in the assessment year 2014-15 was already made by the respondent No.1 in the said order. The said order, insofar as respondents are concerned, has attained finality. The question as to whether the respondent No.1 could have adjusted the sum of ₹ 176,3900637/- or not is an issue raised in this Writ Petition. The said issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessment year in question in this case is 2014-15. In our view, the Section 241A pressed in service even in the affidavit-in-reply or otherwise is not attracted to the refund of assessment year 2014-15 or any assessment year prior to 2017-18. 26. It is not in dispute that as on today, there is no determination of any further tax liability for any other assessment year which liability can be adjusted against the admitted refundable amount determined by the respondent No.1 assuming Section 241A is applicable or otherwise. Even otherwise no approval is granted by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be to withhold the refund up to the date on which the assessment is made. In this case, the assessment order under Section 143(1) for the assessment year 2014-2015 has already attained finality resulting in refund of amount in view of the judgment delivered by Hon ble Supreme Court on 29th April, 2020 and the order dated 28th May, 2020 passed by the respondent no.1. 27. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
