Ekta Associates vs. Commissioner Income Tax Bhopal

WP/14841/2023HC Madhya Pradesh28 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI2 pages

For Petitioner: Himanshu Mishra

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), no further adjudication was necessary in the writ petition. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the CIT (Appeals) to decide the petitioner's grievance as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The primary reasoning was that the petitioner had recourse to the appellate authority, rendering the writ petition premature or unnecessary for the High Court to intervene at that stage, other than to ensure timely disposal of the pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ekta Associates, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking a direction for the refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 1,92,790. The respondents contended that the petitioner had not exhausted available remedies, specifically by not filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the summary order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's counsel then clarified that an appeal had indeed been filed before the CIT (Appeals) and was pending. The High Court noted that the petitioner had availed the remedy before the CIT (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a refund of TDS when statutory remedies are available and have been partially availed (Question of law and procedure). 2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to refund the TDS amount of Rs. 1,92,790 (Question of mixed law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had already approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for redressal of their grievance, and this appeal was still pending. Therefore, a direction should be issued to the CIT (Appeals) to decide the matter expeditiously. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner had not exhausted all available channels and had not approached the senior authority. They contended that the petitioner should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the summary order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which they had not done.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 14841 of 2023 EKTA ASSOCIATES Versus COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX BHOPAL AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Himanshu Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. In this petition under Article of 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has not challenged any particular order, but he is seeking a direction to the respondent to refund the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs.1,92,790/-. The respondents have filed para wise reply stating that the petitioner/assessee has not exhausted all the channels as available to him and has not approached the senior authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the summary order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the petitioner could have filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which he has not availed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already 1 WP-14841-2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42807 Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 31-08-2024 15:47:33 Signature Not Verified (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking redressal of the grievance which is still pending, therefore, a direction be issued to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the same as expeditiously as possible. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed the remedy before the CIT (Appeals), no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the CIT (Appeals) to decide the grievance of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed off. DevS

2 WP-14841-2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42807 Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 31-08-2024 15:47:33 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →