PAYU PAYMENTS PVT LTD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), GURGAON AND OTHERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the counsel for the petitioner stated that the amount in dispute has already been refunded or released to the petitioner. In view of this development, the Court was of the opinion that no further orders were required to be passed in the writ petition. The petition was accordingly disposed of. The principle here is that if the underlying grievance leading to a writ petition for direction is rendered infructuous by subsequent events, the court may not proceed to issue directions. No specific issue regarding the merits of the rectification application was decided, nor was the rectification application itself decided by the Tribunal. The issue of whether the rectification application should be disposed of was rendered moot by the refund.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, PayU Payments Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others to dispose of its rectification application dated September 27, 2022. The petitioner is the assessee and the respondents are the revenue. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the non-disposal of the rectification application. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the petitioner filed a rectification application and subsequently filed the present writ petition when it remained undisposed of.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the revenue authorities to dispose of the petitioner's rectification application dated September 27, 2022? (Question of procedure/administrative action). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the respondents have failed to dispose of its rectification application and seeks a direction for its disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents. However, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the amount in dispute has already been refunded/released to the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023:PHHC:084328-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5086 of 2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.07.2023
PayU Payments Private Limited .....Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others ....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate, and Mr. Abhivadya Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Ritu Bahri, J. 1. Petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to dispose of its (petitioner’s) rectification application dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-6). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount has already been refunded/released to the petitioner. 3. In view of the said fact, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. Disposed of accordingly. (RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
(KULDEEP TIWARI) 05.07.2023 JUDGE ajp Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2023.07.07 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
