RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CW/14199/2020HC RajasthanRJHC02069964202016 February 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the respondents. The court ordered that the refund amount found due by the order dated 27.03.2023 should be credited to the petitioner's account within eight weeks from the date of the order. The court also stipulated that if there were any impediments to this action, the respondents should communicate them to the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted liberty to pursue further legal remedies if any grievance remained unaddressed. The core of the decision is the enforcement of the previously determined refund order within a stipulated timeframe.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, to issue a refund along with interest of Rs. 8,21,821/- for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. The petitioner's grievance was that despite an order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the respondents determining the refund amount, including interest, at Rs. 15 lacs, the amount had not been credited to their account. The petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the issuance of refund along with interest for the Assessment Year 2008-2009, as determined by the order dated 27.03.2023. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that an order determining the refund amount, including interest, was passed by the respondents on 27.03.2023, but the credited amount had not been received till date, necessitating the present petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents. The matter was disposed of based on the petitioner's submission and the court's direction.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:8204-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14199/2020 Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Having Its Address At Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Ankush Jain, Accounts Officer (Commercial And Taxation) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 6, Jaipur Having Its Office At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Having Its Office At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 16/02/2024 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to issue refund along with the interest of Rs.8,21,821/- for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 27.03.2023 was passed by the respondents determining the refund amount of Rs.15 lacs including the interest. The grievance is that till date the amount has not been credited. 3. This petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondents that the refund amount found due by the order dated

[2024:RJ-JP:8204-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-14199/2020] 27.03.2023 be credited in the account of the petitioner within eight weeks from today. 4. In case of any impediment in doing so, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. 5. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievance, if any. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RAJAT/26

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →