WABTEC LOCOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6499/2025HC DelhiDLHC01030130202509 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the agreement between the parties. The Court noted that the revenue proposed to adjust an outstanding demand of Rs. 24,53,204/- for AY 2020-21 against the refund of Rs. 3,25,13,210/- sought by the petitioner for AY 2024-25. The petitioner agreed to this adjustment. Consequently, the Court directed that the balance amount, after the adjustment of the outstanding demand, shall be paid to the petitioner along with applicable interest as per rules, within a maximum of six weeks. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim beyond this agreed adjustment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Wabtec Locomotive Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 25(1), Delhi & Anr.) to issue a refund of Rs. 3,25,13,210/- along with interest for Assessment Year 2024-25. The petitioner contended that the respondents' action in withholding the refund was unjust, arbitrary, and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, stated that a demand of Rs. 24,53,204/- for Assessment Year 2020-21 was outstanding against the petitioner and proposed to adjust this amount against the refund claimed. The petitioner agreed to this proposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 3,25,13,210/- along with interest for AY 2024-25, and if so, whether the respondents' action in withholding it is arbitrary and against the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the refund of Rs. 3,25,13,210/- for AY 2024-25 and that the respondents' inaction or withholding of this amount is unjust and contrary to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, did not contest the entitlement to the refund but stated that an outstanding demand of Rs. 24,53,204/- for AY 2020-21 exists against the petitioner. The revenue proposed to adjust this outstanding demand against the refund amount claimed by the petitioner. The revenue left the decision to the Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies provisions related to refunds and adjustments under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6499/2025 WABTEC LOCOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSC, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 09.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “A. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to issue a refund of Rs. 3,25,13,210/- along with up-to-date interest for AY 2024-25 as the action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and B. Issue any other Writ, order, or Direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and C. To allow the writ petition with cost in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.” 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 17/09/2025 at 14:29:27

2.

Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel has left it to the Court to decide the issue. He also states a demand of Rs.24,53,204/- for the Assessment Year 2020-21 is outstanding against the petitioner. He states that the said amount shall be adjusted against the amount of Rs.3,25,13,210/- for which the petition has been filed. 3. This is agreeable to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. If that be so, the balance amount after adjustment shall be paid to the petitioner along with the applicable interest as per rules within six weeks as an outer limit. 5. The petition along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 tg 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 17/09/2025 at 14:29:27

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →