HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court, on prima facie consideration, found the stand and approach of the Assessing Officer (AO) in withholding the refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-, despite the amount being found refundable and a prior court order, to be highly arbitrary. The Court did not delve into the merits of the tax demand for AY 2021-22 or the undertaking given before the ITAT in this specific order. The primary focus was on the non-compliance with the earlier court directive. The Court directed that the incumbent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Delhi, shall appear in person on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons for the non-compliance. The case was listed for further hearing.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited, approached the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition (W.P.(C) 9671/2025) highlighting a grievance that despite a previous court order dated 11.07.2025 directing the respondents to pass a rectification order and issue a refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) had not complied. The petitioner also submitted that a subsequent order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, had raised a demand of Rs. 1,77,47,82,380/-, but an undertaking was given before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that this demand would not be enforced. The revenue's counsel stated that the refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/- had not been processed due to the aforementioned demand for AY 2021-22.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Assessing Officer's action of withholding a refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-, despite a court order directing its issuance and the amount being found refundable, is arbitrary, turning on the principles of judicial discipline and the AO's statutory obligations under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the AO has failed to comply with the court's order dated 11.07.2025, which directed the passing of a rectification order and the issuance of a refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-. They also pointed out that an undertaking was given before the ITAT that a subsequent demand for AY 2021-22 would not be enforced, yet the refund remains withheld. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/- has not been processed because a demand of Rs. 1,77,47,82,380/- for AY 2021-22 has been raised against the petitioner by an order dated 12.12.2025.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 03.08.2026 CM APPL. 50418/2026 (for directions)
By way of the present application, the petitioner highlighted a grievance that despite the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by this Court, directing the respondents to pass rectification order and issue corresponding refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) has not done the needful. He further submitted that during the period interregnum, though an order under Section 143(3) of the Income This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 11:09:27
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) has been passed and a demand for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 amounting to Rs. 1,77,47,82,380/-, has been raised but an undertaking has been given by the AO before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) that such demand shall not be enforced.
Mr. Sanjeev Menon, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department, on oral instructions, submitted that the amount of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-, has not been refunded to the petitioner, as above referred demand of Rs. 1,77,47,82,380/-, has been raised against the petitioner, by way of order dated 12.12.2025 for AY 2021-22. 3. On prima facie consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the stand as well as the approach of the AO of sitting over the refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-, despite the amount being found refundable, is highly arbitrary.
List this case on 04.08.2026. 5. The present incumbent, whosoever, is holding the office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Delhi, shall appear in person to explain the reason of not doing the needful in the matter. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 3, 2026/nd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2026 at 11:09:27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
