JASWINDER SINGH LOTA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11930/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067578202530 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the statement made by the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. It was stated that the DCIT (International Taxation), by an order dated 25.04.2025, had made the rectification sought by the petitioner. As a result, Rs.15,34,890/- was transferred online to CPC, Bengaluru. CPC was instructed to credit this amount to the petitioner's bank account, subject to the petitioner providing the necessary documentation within three weeks from the date of the order. In light of this submission, the Court found no further orders to be necessary and disposed of the petition. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent Income Tax authorities again if he found any discrepancy in the amount actually refunded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jaswinder Singh Lota, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh seeking directions for the refund of Rs.15,33,850/-, which he alleged was illegally adjusted by the Income Tax authorities. The respondents, represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) had passed an order on 25.04.2025, rectifying the petitioner's request. Consequently, Rs.15,34,890/- was transferred online to the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru. CPC was directed to credit this amount to the petitioner's bank account upon the petitioner providing the necessary documentation within three weeks.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax authorities have illegally adjusted an amount of Rs.15,33,850/- belonging to the petitioner, and if so, what directions are required for its refund? (Question of fact and law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that an amount of Rs.15,33,850/- was illegally adjusted by the respondent Income Tax authorities and sought directions for its refund. Revenue's Contention: The respondent Income Tax Department, through Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, informed the Court that through an order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the DCIT (International Taxation), the rectification sought by the petitioner had been made. An amount of Rs.15,34,890/- was transferred online to CPC, Bengaluru, which would credit the petitioner upon submission of required documentation within three weeks.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (Sr. No.123) CWP No. 11930 of 2025 Date of decision: 30.04.2025 Jaswinder Singh Lota ..... Petitioner Versus DCIT (International Taxation) and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Prakyat JS, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Through this petition the petitioner seeks issuance of directions to the respondent Income Tax authorities to refund him an amount of Rs.15,33,850/- which amount, according to him, has been illegally adjusted by the respondents. (2) At the outset, Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, who appears on advance notice for the respondents, states that she has express instructions from the respondents that through order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the DCIT (International Taxation), the rectification sought by the petitioner has already been made and resultantly, an amount of Rs.15,34,890/- has been transferred online to CPC, Bengaluru, which authority, subject to the providing of required documentation by the petitioner, within 03 weeks from today, shall credit the afore amount in the petitioner’s bank account. SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.07 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No. 11930 of 2025 [2]

(3)

In the light of the afore statement of Ms. Dhugga, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to represent to the respondent Income Tax authorities in case according to him there is any discrepancy with regard to the amount which is actually refunded to him by the respondent authorities.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

30.04.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.07 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →