2022 (1) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h adjustment of refund, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to refund of adjustments made in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through: Mr. Avinash Trivedi, Advocate Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral) 1. Matter has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of ₹ 1,66,35,954/- which was recovered in excess of 20% of the total disputed tax demand for the Assessment Year 2013-14 against the refunds due for various Assessment Years. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to hear and dispose of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the provisions of the Office Memorandums recovered the disputed outstanding tax demand in excess of 20% by way of adjustment of refunds due for subsequent assessment years. He states that while 20% of the disputed amount for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was ₹ 47,13,706/- (20% of ₹ 2,35,68,530/-), the respondent adjusted ₹ 2,13,49,060/- being 90.58% of the demand. Issue notice. Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that he has the following instructions from the Assessing Officer which he has screen shared and which is reproduced as under:- "Sir, Kindly refer to the trailing mail vide which the said matter was allocated to you to defend the case before Hon'ble Delhi Hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. In the event, the Assessing Officer is of the view that the payment of a lump sum amount higher than 20% is warranted, then the Assessing Officer will have to give reasons to show that the case falls in para 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. 11. This Court finds that the order under Section 245 of the Act for adjustments of refunds as well as the order on stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Act do not give any special/particular reason as to why any amount in excess of 20% of the outstanding demand should be recovered from the petitioner-assessee at this stage in accordance with paragraph 4(B) of the office memorandum dated 29 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X