RKKR SHIKSHA FOUNDATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16230/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086805201806 July 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the Income Tax Officer(Exemption) at Faridabad to dispose of the representations made by the petitioner on February 22, 2017, April 25, 2017, and June 19, 2017, which pertained to the refund claim. The Court further directed that if the petitioner is found to be entitled to any refund, the necessary action should be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The principle established is that authorities must act upon representations for refunds based on final orders within a stipulated time, and the High Court can direct such action through a writ of mandamus.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, RKKR Shiksha Foundation, a company registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner's grievance was that it was entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,08,47,985/- for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16. This refund claim was based on orders from the Income-Tax Commissioner(Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had attained finality. Despite sending notices, the respondent-authorities had not processed the refund. The writ petition sought a direction for the refund to be processed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,08,47,985/- for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16, based on final orders of higher authorities, and if so, whether the respondent-authorities are obligated to process this refund. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that it is entitled to the refund as claimed, based on the finality of the orders passed by the Income-Tax Commissioner(Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner also contended that despite sending notices, the refund has not been processed by the respondent-authorities. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. The Court proceeded to dispose of the petition without expressing views on the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16230-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16230-2018 Date of Decision: July 06, 2018 RKKR Shiksha Foundation .....Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption) and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present: Mr.Rohit Garg, Advocate for Mr.Sanjay Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. ........ SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) The petitioner-Company is duly registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Its grievance in the instant writ petition is that for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16, the Company is entitled to refund of Rs.1,08,47,985/- as per the details given in para 2 of the writ petition. The refund claim is stated to be based on the orders passed by the Income-Tax Commissioner(Appeals) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders, which are said to have been attained finality. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the amount is not being refunded despite notices sent by it to the respondent-authorities. [2] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought in the instant writ petition but without expressing any views on merits of the case, the same is disposed of with a direction to the Income Tax Officer(Exemption) at Faridabad to dispose of the Meenu 2018.07.12 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-16230-2018 -2- representations dated 22.02.2017, 25.04.2017 and 19.06.2017, in which the petitioner has raised its claim for refund, by way of a reasoned order and in case the petitioner is found entitled to any refund, let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE July 06, 2018

( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE

1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2018.07.12 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →