PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. SEAGRAM MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LTD.(NOW PEMOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD.)
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court disposed of W.P.(C) Nos. 882/2016 and 1009/2016 as infructuous, noting that the amounts along with interest had been refunded in full in these specific cases. For the remaining writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 879/2016, 883/2016, 885/2016, 1008/2016, and 1010/2016), the court observed that while amounts had been refunded, the interest had not been fully granted. The court directed that it would be open for the petitioners in these remaining cases to represent afresh to the respondents regarding any surviving grievance concerning the non-payment of part of the interest. The concerned Assessment Officer was directed to consider and pass a speaking order on such representations/claims within six weeks of their receipt. The remaining petitions were disposed of in terms of this direction.
What were the facts?
These are multiple writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court by various petitioners, including Smt. Usha Chaupaisia, Arpit Chaurasia, Kamala Kant Chaurasia, Kamal Kishore Chaurasia, Navneet Chaurasia, Anand Kumar Chaurasia, and Kamla Kant And Company. The common thread in these petitions is a claim for the refund of excess amounts paid towards Income Tax dues. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another authority. The petitioners are seeking the refund of amounts along with applicable interest. The petitions were listed before the Delhi High Court on February 7, 2017.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a full refund of excess amounts paid towards Income Tax dues, including interest, for the assessment years in question (not specified in the judgment)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners contend that they have paid excess amounts towards their Income Tax liabilities and are therefore entitled to a refund of these amounts along with the applicable interest. They are seeking satisfaction of their claims for refund. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's specific contentions are not recorded in the judgment. However, their role as respondents implies they are defending the actions or inactions of the Income Tax Department regarding the refund and interest claims.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
'/ $-29 to 35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 879/2016 SMT. USHA CHAUPIASIA Petitioner + W.P.(C) 882/2016 ARPIT CHAURASIA Petitioner + W.P.(C) 883/2016 KAMALA KANT CHAURASIA Petitioner + W.P.(C) 885/2016 KAMAL KISHORE CHAURASIA ' ..... Petitioner + W.P.(CI 1008/2016 NAVNfi'ET CHAURASIA Petitioner + W.P.(CY 1009/2016 ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIA Petitioner + W.P.(C) 1010/2016 KAMLA KANT AND COMPANY Petitioner Versus ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents ~ , Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi and Mr.Arta Trana Panda, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda and Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocates for the Respondents. CORAM: HON'I^LE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % 07.02.2017 In these cases, the claim is for refund of excess amounts paid toithe satisfaction ofthe Income Tax dues. Counsel for the petitioners states that in W.P.(C) No.882/2016 and W.P.(C) No. 1009/2016, which are listed as Item Nos. 30 and 34 respectively, amounts together with interest have been refunded in full. It is stated that in the other writ petitions though amounts have been refunded but interest has not been fully granted. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
'h' In view of the submissions made, W.P.(C) Nos.882/2016 and 1009/2016 are disposed off as infructuous since the claim has been satisfied. As regards the other proceedings, it is open to the petitioners to represent afresh to the respondents with respect to any surviving grievance, in regard to the non-payment of part of the interest. The concerned Assessment Officer shall consider and pass a speaking order on such representations/claims within six weeks ofreceipt thereof. W,.P.(C) Nos.879/2016, 883/2016, 885/2016, 1008/2016 and ,1010/2016 are accordingly disposed off in the aboveterms. Lj^4 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. FEBRUARY 07, 2017 sb ' NAJMIWAZIRI, J. L
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
