T.R.THOMAS vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/42190/2022HC KeralaKLHC01091529202223 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court directed the petitioner to update his bank account details on the Income Tax department's portal. If the petitioner encountered further difficulties in obtaining the refund after updating the details, he was advised to approach the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Officer). The 3rd respondent was then directed to take necessary steps to ensure that the refund ordered in Ext.P3 was actually paid to the petitioner. This action was to be completed within a period of two months from the date of the petitioner filing his request with the 3rd respondent. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund itself but focused on facilitating its disbursement.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, T.R. Thomas, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking the release of a refund ordered under the Income Tax Act, 1961, as evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner was aggrieved by the non-payment of this refund. The respondent department, through its counsel, stated that refunds are processed by the Centralised Processing Centre in Bangalore. They attributed the delay in payment to a mismatch in the bank account details provided by the petitioner. The department suggested that updating these details on the portal would expedite the refund process and advised the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Officer) if further difficulties arose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the Income Tax Department to release a refund that has been sanctioned but not yet paid due to procedural issues. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the court's intervention is necessary to ensure the timely release of a legally sanctioned refund, as the department's inaction is causing prejudice. Revenue's Contention: The respondent department contends that the delay is due to a mismatch in the petitioner's bank account details, which can be rectified by the petitioner updating the information on the Income Tax portal. They also suggest approaching the assessing officer for further assistance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 42190 OF 2022 PETITIONER: T.R.THOMAS AGED 79 YEARS THOTTIYIL HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 017. BY ADVS. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN B.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CR BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CR BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD, 2(2) I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.42190/2022 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the refund ordered under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as is evident from Ext.P3, has not been actually paid to the petitioner.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent department submits that refunds are processed by the Centrelised Processing Centre, of the Income Tax department at Bangalore and the refund granted in terms of Ext.P3 would not have been paid only on account of some mismatch in the Bank account details submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that if the petitioner was updated the Bank account details in the portal, the refund will be processed without delay. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner faces any further difficulty, he may approach the 3rd respondent.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent department, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the petitioner to update the details of his Bank account in the portal of the Income Tax department. If the petitioner faces any further difficulty in obtaining the refund, he may approach the 3rd respondent, who shall take steps to ensure that the refund ordered in terms of Ext.P3 is actually paid to the petitioner. If the petitioner has to approach the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall take steps to do the needful, within a period of two months from the date of filing of request by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42190/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/01/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP( C) 28409/2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2022 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/08/2022 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →