CHIRAG SATIA AND ANOTHER vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers

CWP/19271/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01111545202301 September 2023Author: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction. It held that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the refund amount already approved (Rs. 31,96,140/-), they are at liberty to make another representation to the respondent department. This representation should claim the remaining refund amount that has not been approved. The court further directed that such a representation, if filed, will be decided by the respondent by passing a speaking order. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to pursue the remaining refund claim through a formal representation and to ensure it is decided with a reasoned order. No specific issue regarding the legality of the partial refund or the reasons for withholding the balance was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Chirag Satia and another, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda, to refund the advance income tax deposited for the assessment year 2020-21. The total advance tax deposited was Rs. 38,69,588/-. The petitioner's grievance was that the entire amount had not been refunded, with only Rs. 31,96,140/- being approved for refund by the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Bathinda, as per a letter dated 31.08.2022. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the refund of the entire advance income tax deposited for the assessment year 2020-21, amounting to Rs. 38,69,588/-, when only Rs. 31,96,140/- has been approved for refund. The petitioner contended that they are seeking the refund of the full amount of advance tax deposited. The revenue's position, as indicated by the partial approval of the refund, suggests a dispute over the remaining amount. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments or any specific legal provisions cited by either party, focusing instead on the procedural outcome.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2023:PHHC:114876-DB 112 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19271-2023 Date of decision:01.09.2023 Chirag Satia and another ....Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Jagat Vir Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. **** Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral). 1. The petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No. 1 to refund the advance income tax deposited by the petitioner-company with the respondent department for the assessment year 2020-21 for an amount of Rs.38,69,588/-. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire amount of Rs.38,69,588/- has not been refunded and only Rs.31,96,140/- has been approved vide letter dated 31.08.2022 by the office of Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Bathinda. 3. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the refund amount, he is at liberty to make another representation claiming the remaining refund amount, which has not been approved and the representation will be decided

by passing a speaking order. DIVYANSHI 2023.09.05 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-19271-2023 2023:PHHC:114876-DB -2-

Writ petition is disposed of (RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 01.09.2023

Divyanshi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2023.09.05 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →