Balaji Edibles Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I

WP/14759/2024HC Madhya Pradesh29 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL2 pages

For Petitioner: Sapan Usrethe

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the respondents to pay the refundable tax amount along with statutory interest within fifteen days from the date of the order. This direction was issued in the presence of the respondents' representative. The Court further stipulated that if the payment was not made within the stipulated period, the respondents would be liable to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner, in addition to the statutory interest. The Court did not explicitly mention any specific section of the Income Tax Act being violated, but the direction implies a failure to adhere to the timely refund provisions. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balaji Edibles Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur seeking a refund of tax amount. The petitioner contended that the respondents, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax I and others, admitted their liability to refund the tax and had been informing the petitioner that a refund ticket was being issued. However, no action had been taken since 2018, a period of six years. The respondents, represented by Mr. Siddharth Sharma, admitted that the amount was refundable along with interest as per the Income Tax Act but cited technical glitches as the reason for the delay in payment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents have unduly delayed the refund of tax amount admissible to the petitioner, contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning the obligation to refund and the delay in processing). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite the respondents admitting their liability and promising action since 2018, no refund has been processed for six years, causing undue hardship. Revenue's Contention: The revenue admitted the refund liability along with statutory interest but attributed the delay to technical glitches. They did not dispute the admissibility of the refund or the fact of delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 14759 of 2024 BALAJI EDIBLES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I AND OTHERS Appearance: Mr. Sapan Usrethe - Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal It is submitted that it is a matter of refund of the tax amount which is admissible in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner's contention is that though the respondents have admitted their liability to refund the same and have been informing him time and again that ticket in this regard is being issued but no action has been taken since 2018. Long period of six years has lapsed. Mr. Siddharth Sharma admits that this amount is refundable along with the interest as per the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act. However, due to some technicial glitches, it could not be paid. Now, it is directed that the same be paid within a period of fifteen days from today as order is being passed in presence of the representative of the 1 WP-14759-2024 Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 30/07/2024 12:08:40 pm Signature Not Verified (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE respondents, namely, Mr. Siddharth Sharma, failing which, the respondents will be liable to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner for delaying the matter. This cost will be over and above the interest which is payable statutorily in terms of the provisions contained in Income Tax Act. In above terms, petition stands disposed of. julie

2 WP-14759-2024 Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 30/07/2024 12:08:40 pm Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →