M/S NMDC ENERGY PJSC (ERSTWHILE M/S NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT. TAX 2(2)(2), CIVIC CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6945/2025HC DelhiDLHC01032203202527 November 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court took on record the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, that the refund as sought for by the petitioner would be made within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. In view of this submission by the Revenue, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the relief sought in the petition stood satisfied and requested the petition be disposed of. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition as satisfied. No specific finding was made on the merits of the refund claim or the legality of the Revenue's prior inaction, as the matter was resolved by the Revenue's undertaking to issue the refund.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s NMDC Energy PJSC (erstwhile M/s National Petroleum Construction Company), filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to issue a refund of Rs. 1,54,39,555/- along with statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the respondent's action was unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the Act. The respondent, represented by its counsel, submitted that instructions had been received to ensure the refund is processed within six weeks from the date of the order. In light of this submission, the petitioner stated that the relief sought in the petition was satisfied.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent is liable to issue a refund of Rs. 1,54,39,555/- along with statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act to the petitioner? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent's action in withholding the refund was unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, necessitating a writ of mandamus. The petitioner sought the refund amount along with up-to-date statutory interest. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted on instructions that the refund sought by the petitioner would be made within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6945/2025 M/S NMDC ENERGY PJSC (ERSTWHILE M/S NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT. TAX 2(2)(2), CIVIC CENTRE .....Respondent Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr Apoorv Aggarwal, Mr Parth Samwal, JSCs, Ms Nupur Sharma, Mr Gaurav Singh, Mr Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms Muskan Goel, Mr Himanshu Goel and Mr Nischay Purohit, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 27.11.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to issue refund of amount of Rs.1,54,39,555/- along with up-to-date statutory interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act as the action of the Respondent is unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 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. c) To allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.” 2. Though, an adjournment slip has been circulated on behalf of the 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 01/12/2025 at 14:56:15

learned counsel for the Revenue, but Mr Apoorv Aggarwal, learned JSC appearing for the Revenue, on instructions, submits that he has received the instructions in the morning to state that the refund as sought for by the petitioner in this petition shall be made within a period of six weeks, as an outer limit from today. His submission is taken on the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the stand of the Revenue, the relief sought for in the petition stands satisfied and petition be disposed of. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025 M 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 01/12/2025 at 14:56:15

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →