KANSAL PROFILES vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31101/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01160074202419 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent (Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh) to decide the representation/letter dated 05.08.2024 by passing a speaking order. The Court further directed that if the refund is required to be released in terms of the order passed in the appeal, it shall be released along with interest as required under the Act. The order is to be passed preferably within a period of one month. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original additions or the validity of the appellate order, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of deciding the pending representation and releasing the refund if due.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kansal Profiles, is seeking the release of a refund. The petitioner states that an order passed on 29.03.2019 in appeal had set aside certain additions, but the consequential refund has not been released. The petitioner filed a representation on 05.08.2024 regarding this issue, which has not been answered. The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, accepted notice. The petitioner requested a direction for the respondents to decide their representation within a time-bound manner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to give effect to an appellate order dated 29.03.2019 that set aside additions and release the consequential refund to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning the implementation of appellate orders). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the appellate order setting aside additions has not been implemented, and the refund has not been released. They have filed a representation which remains unanswered and seek a direction for its decision. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, stated that they have no objection if directions are issued to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, to decide the representation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-31101-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-31101-2024 Decided on : 19.11.2024 Kansal Profiles . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Short prayer made by the petitioner is that the order passed regarding the refund dated 29.03.2019 in appeal, whereby, the additions were set-aside, has not been given effect and the refund has not been released. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessee has filed a representation dated 05.08.2024, which has remained unanswered and he may be satisfied if the respondents are directed to decide the representation in a time bound manner. 3. At this stage, Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that he would not have any objection, if the directions are issued by this Court to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, to decide the representation. 4. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition with direction to JAWALA RAM 2024.11.21 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-31101-2024 - 2 - the respondent to decide the representation/letter dated 05.08.2024, by passing the speaking order. If the refund is required to be released in terms of the order passed in the appeal, same shall be released along with interest, as required under the Act. The order shall be passed preferably within a period of one month. Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 19, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.11.21 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →