M/S LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY AND SONS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/8530/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01001032201225 July 2012Bench: H.G.RAMESH2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the legal representatives (LRs) of Balakrishna Setty to apply for a refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by mistake as advance tax for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Court directed that upon such an application being filed, the Income Tax Officer shall consider the claim for refund in accordance with law. Furthermore, if the application were to be barred by limitation, the concerned officer was directed to consider the same by condoning the delay in the interest of justice. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund claim itself but facilitated the process for its consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Lakshminarayana Setty and Sons, represented by its partner R. Ravishankar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition sought a direction to the respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Bangalore, to consider the payment of advance tax made on 15.09.2008 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and to issue a refund of the same along with interest. The payment in question was made by mistake. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the legal representatives (LRs) of Balakrishna Setty may be permitted to apply for the refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid erroneously as advance tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the legal representatives of Balakrishna Setty should be permitted to apply for a refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by mistake as advance tax for the Assessment Year 2009-10? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the right to claim refund and procedural permissions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought permission for the LRs of Balakrishna Setty to apply for the refund of the mistakenly paid advance tax. Revenue's Contention: The respondent fairly submitted that liberty as sought for may be granted to the petitioner, and on an application by the LRs of Balakrishna Setty, the claim for refund will be considered in accordance with law. The respondent also agreed that if the application is barred by limitation, the concerned officer shall consider the same in accordance with law by condoning the delay in the interest of justice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P No.8530 OF 2012 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.8530 OF 2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY AND SONS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER R. RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE B.L.RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.247, 3RD MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560018. … PETITIONER (BY SRI R.RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR M/S VASAN ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2) UNITY BUILDING ANNEXURE MISSION ROAD BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, ADVOCATE) WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX MADE ON 15.09.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND DIRECT TO ISSUE REFUND OF THE SAME TOGETHER INTERESTS THEREON. WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

W.P No.8530 OF 2012 -2- O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the LRs of Balakrishna Setty may be permitted to apply for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) paid by mistake to the respondent on 15.09.2008 as advance tax. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that liberty as sought for may be granted to the petitioner and on an application by the LRs of Balakrishna Setty, the claim for refund will be considered in accordance with law. 3. However, if the application is barred by limitation, the concerned officer shall consider the same in accordance with law by condoning the delay in the interest of justice. Petition disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE GH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →