ORCHID BIOMEDICAL SYSTEMS, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, DEEPAK G. TRIPATHI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/250/2023HC BombayHCBM05000839202306 September 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHARAT P. DESHPANDE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 1, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, to treat the writ petition and the Petitioner's submitted chart/calculation sheet as a representation for the payment of interest amounting to ₹6,69,485/-. The Joint Commissioner was directed to dispose of this representation within three months from the date of the order. The Court also stipulated that the Joint Commissioner should consider granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner or their representative before making a decision. The decision of the Joint Commissioner must be communicated to the Petitioner within the same three-month period. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings if aggrieved by the decision of the Joint Commissioner. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Orchid Biomedical Systems, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the non-refund of ₹81,15,589/-, due pursuant to a prior court decision. During the pendency of the writ petition, this principal amount was refunded. However, the Petitioner contended that there was a delay in refund and that interest for three months, as well as additional interest under Section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not paid. The Petitioner submitted a calculation sheet claiming ₹6,69,485/- as interest.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest for the delay in refund of the principal amount of ₹81,15,589/- and additional interest under Section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: - The Petitioner argued that despite the refund of the principal amount, there was a delay, and interest for three months was not paid. - The Petitioner further contended that additional interest under Section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act was also not paid. - The Petitioner submitted a calculation sheet detailing their claim for interest amounting to ₹6,69,485/- Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the Petitioner's claim for interest. Ms. Susan Linhares appeared for Respondent No. 1.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

29 WP 250 OF 2023.ODT Esha IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 250 of 2023 ORCHID BIOMEDICAL SYSTEMS, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, DEEPAK G. TRIPATHI VS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, AND ANR. … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS Mr Nigel Fernandes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1. CORAM: M. S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 6th SEPTEMBER 2023 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr Nigel Fernandes for the Petitioner and Ms Susan Linhares for Respondent No. 1. 2. This Petition was instituted because the Respondents were not refunding an amount of 81,15,589/-, which was due to the ₹ Petitioner, inter alia, pursuant to the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 48 of 2015 decided on 07.10.2020. 3. However, during the pendency of this Petition, this amount of 81,15,589/- was refunded to the Petitioner. However, it is ₹ the Petitioner’s case that there was a delay and interest for three months was not paid to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also contended that the additional interest under Section 244A(1A) of the I.T. Act was also not paid to the Petitioner. Page 1 of 2 6th September 2023

29 WP 250 OF 2023.ODT 4. Mr Nigel Fernandes has given us a chart/calculation sheet, according to which, the Petitioner claims interest of 6,69,485/-. ₹ A copy of this chart/calculation sheet is also furnished to Ms Linhares. 5. Considering the fact that the entire principal amount of 81,15,589/- is already paid to the Petitioner, we dispose of this ₹ Petition by directing Respondent No. 1 to treat the Petition and the chart/calculation sheet now furnished to Ms Linhares as Petitioner’s representation for payment of interest of 6,69,485/-. ₹ The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax must dispose of this representation within three months from today. The Joint Commissioner should consider granting of opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner or their Representative before taking a decision on their representation. The decision must be communicated to the Petitioner within three months from today. 6. In case the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to challenge the same by filing appropriate proceedings. 7. The Petition is disposed of with the above directions, with no order as to costs. 8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. M. S. SONAK, J. Page 2 of 2 6th September 2023 VAIGANKAR ESHA SAINATH Digitally signed by VAIGANKAR ESHA SAINATH Date: 2023.09.07 14:16:07 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 244A(1A)

All 32 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →