VIMAL SINGHVI S/O SHRI CHAMPA LAL SINGHVI vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6975/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02036484202231 May 2023Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, taking into account the subsequent development of a substantial refund being processed. The Court directed the respondents to examine the petitioner's claim for the balance amount as a refund, rather than an adjustment, and to also consider the claim for interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was to be made within three months through a speaking order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the balance refund or interest claim but mandated a reasoned decision by the revenue. The petitioner was granted liberty to revive the petition if their grievance remained unredressed. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the core claims were remanded for decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vimal Singhvi, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court seeking a refund of an amount along with interest. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents informed the Court that a substantial amount of Rs. 2.16 Crores out of the total claimed amount of Rs. 2.27 Crores had already been refunded. For the balance amount and the interest claimed, the respondents stated they had not received instructions and had yet to file a reply. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim for the balance refund and interest had neither been granted nor rejected by a speaking order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the balance refund amount claimed, and if so, whether it should be paid as a refund or adjusted against future liabilities (a mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of refund provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought the balance refund along with interest. The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's specific arguments on the nature of the balance amount (refund vs. adjustment). Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that a substantial portion had been refunded and that they were awaiting instructions regarding the balance and interest. They did not explicitly argue for adjustment over refund, nor did they contest the claim for interest in their submissions recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023/RJJP/012759] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6975/2022 Vimal Singhvi S/o Shri Champa Lal Singhvi, R/o 80, Kiran Marg, Suraj Nagar (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur-302006 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajasthan Jaipur, Income Tax Department, NCRB Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Income Tax Department, NCRB Statue Circle, Jaipur. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Income Tax Department, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, Advocate with Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/05/2023 During the pendency of this petition, seeking relief of refund along with the interest, it is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that out of total amount of Rs.2.27 Crores, substantial amount of Rs.2.16 Crores has already been refunded. As far as balance amount is concerned as also interest on the same, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has not received any instructions and reply is yet to be filed. Taking into consideration the subsequent developments, during pendency of this petition and particularly taking into (Uploaded on 03/06/2023 at 10:21:45 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:17 AM)

[2023/RJJP/012759] (2 of 2) [CW-6975/2022] consideration that substantial amount of Rs.2.16 crores has been refunded, though the claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of the balance amount as claimed by him towards refund as also interest, which has so far not been granted, nor the claim rejected by any speaking order, we are inclined to dispose off this petition at this stage with a direction to the respondent to examine the petitioner’s claim for payment of balance amount as refund instead of adjustment as claimed by the petitioner as also to consider the claim for grant of interest in view of the provisions contained under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and decide the same within a period of three months by a speaking order. The petition is accordingly disposed off. The petitioner would be at liberty to revive the petition in case eventuality so arises and if grievance is not redressed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Karan/31 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 03/06/2023 at 10:21:45 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:17 AM)

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →