JAIOMPRAKASH MADHUKAR BHAGAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/2355/2021HC BombayHCBM01018799202113 January 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The Court noted that the petition lacked an averment that an application for refund had been made to the concerned authority. The petitioner's counsel conceded that no such application was made, making the petition premature. The Court permitted the petitioner to apply to the concerned authority for the refund. This authority was directed to consider the application in accordance with the law and also take into account a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pinnacle Vastunirman Private Limited V/s. The Union of India and Ors. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund claim itself, but rather on the procedural deficiency of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jaiomprakash Madhukar Bhagat, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the respondents (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.) to refund an amount of Rs. 7,11,611/- paid by him under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 (IDS). The petitioner had paid this amount but failed to pay the balance amount within the prescribed time. The Scheme stipulated that failure to pay the tax, surcharge, and penalty by the due date would render the declaration deemed never to have been made. The petitioner argued that since his declaration was deemed void, the amount paid should be refunded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 7,11,611/- paid by the petitioner under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, given that the petitioner failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, rendering the declaration void? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that as per the Income Declaration Scheme, if the declarant fails to pay the balance amount, the declaration is deemed never to have been made. Therefore, the amount paid should be refunded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the refund itself. However, the Court noted that the petition was premature as no application for refund had been made by the petitioner to the concerned authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 921.WP-2355-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2355 OF 2021 Jaiomprakash Madhukar Bhagat ….Petitioner V/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ….Respondents ---- Mr. Mohammed Zain Khan for petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 13th JANUARY 2022 P.C. : 1 We have considered the petition and one of the prayer in the petition is for writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondents to refund the amount of Rs.7,11,611/- which petitioner had paid under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 (the IDS). According to petitioner, petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.7,11,611/- but was unable to pay the balance amount under the Scheme within the time prescribed. 2 As per the Scheme, if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surchage and penalty in respect of the declaration made under Section 183 on or before the date specified under sub-section (1), the declaration filed by him shall be deemed never to have been made under this Scheme. Mr. Khan, therefore, requests that respondents be directed to refund the amount paid since as per the IDS, the declaration filed by petitioner shall be deemed never to have been made under the Scheme. Gauri Gaekwad GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2022.01.17 12:11:49 +0530

2/2 921.WP-2355-2021.doc 3 We do not find anywhere in the petition even an averment that such an application for refund has been made by petitioner. Mr. Khan also agrees that such an application was not made and therefore, to that extent, petition is premature. \ 4 Petition dismissed as withdrawn. 5 Petitioner may apply to the concerned authority for refund, who shall consider the application in accordance with law and also consider while considering the application, a judgment of this Court in Pinnacle Vastunirman Private Limited V/s. The Union of India and Ors.1. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1. (2021) 438 ITR 27 (Bom.) Gauri Gaekwad

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →