THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND ANR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/7550/2002HC RajasthanRJHC02001940200228 July 2023Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition lacks merit and dismissed it. The Court found that the Income Tax Department's reply, stating that there is no provision for refund to parties other than the assessee, could not be refuted by the petitioners. The petitioners were considered agents who had deposited the amount on behalf of respondent No. 3. Therefore, the refund, if any, could only be claimed by respondent No. 3. The Court noted that it would be open for the petitioners to avail of their remedy in accordance with law, and the period spent during the pendency of the petition might be available to them under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for availing an alternative remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Unit, Jaipur, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) along with interest. They claimed to have deposited this amount as advance tax on behalf of respondent No. 3, M/s. Mindata Australia Pty. Ltd. The petitioners asserted that an amount was recoverable from respondent No. 3, which could be adjusted against the advance tax paid. The Income Tax Department, in its reply, stated that there is no provision for refund to parties other than the assessee. The petitioners were considered agents acting on behalf of the Income Tax Department, and any refund could only be claimed by respondent No. 3.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioners, acting as agents and having deposited TDS as advance tax on behalf of a third party, are entitled to a refund of the deposited amount from the Income Tax Department? (Question of law, concerning the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to refunds). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that they deposited TDS as advance tax on behalf of respondent No. 3 and that an amount recoverable from respondent No. 3 could be adjusted against this deposit, implying a right to refund or adjustment. Revenue's Contention: The Income Tax Department contended that there is no provision under the Income Tax Act for making a refund to parties other than the actual assessee. They asserted that the petitioners were merely agents and any refund could only be claimed by respondent No. 3, the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023:RJ-JP:15658] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7550/2002 1. The Chief Engineer, Investigation Design And Research, Irrigation Unit, Jaipur 2. The Executive Engineer, Material Testing Division Idandr, Irrigation Unite, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Jaipur-I, Jaipur 2. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Circle -2, Jaipur 3. M/s. Mindata Australia Pty. Ltd. Seaford, 3198, Victoria Australia C/o Envirornmental System Services, 8, River Street, Richmond, Victoria-3121, Australia ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG with Mr. Prateek Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 28/07/2023 ORAL 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking refund of an amount of TDS along with interest from the Income Tax Department which was deposited. 2. The assertion has been made that the amount has been deposited by the petitioners as an advance tax on behalf of the respondent No. 3. It so transpired at the end that there was infact an amount which was to be recovered from respondent No. 3 (Uploaded on 08/08/2023 at 05:13:07 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:04 AM)

[2023:RJ-JP:15658] (2 of 2) [CW-7550/2002] which amount can be adjusted now in the light of the advance tax which has been paid by the petitioners. 3. The reply as has been filed by the Income Tax Department makes it apparent that there is no provision for such a refund to be made to other than the assessee. The petitioners were merely agents and acted on behalf of the Income Tax Department and therefore, refund if any could be claimed by respondent No. 3. 4. In the light of the fact that there is no provision for refund of the amount to the petitioners which aspect could not be refuted, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and therefore dismiss the same. 5. It would however be open to the petitioners to avail of their remedy in accordance with law. The period spent during the pendency of the petition, the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act may be available to the petitioners in case, advised for availing the alternative remedy. (SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ AKG/Pooja/16 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 08/08/2023 at 05:13:07 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:44:04 AM)

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →