BALAJI ENTERPRISES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/16367/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01034618202507 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions, deemed it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated July 25, 2025. The respondents were ordered to take an appropriate decision and pass necessary orders after providing the petitioner with a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to be heard. This decision was to be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the court's order. The petitioner was also granted liberty to pursue other available legal remedies, including approaching the High Court again if necessary. The petition was disposed of subject to these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balaji Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) to grant refunds of Rs. 3,62,636 for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 3,62,970 for AY 2017-18. The petitioner also sought interest on these refunds under Section 244A(1) and Section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was filed on June 21, 2025. Following the filing of the petition, an Order Giving Effect To (OGE) was passed on July 7, 2025. The petitioner then submitted a representation on July 25, 2025, which had not been considered by the respondents at the time of the hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are liable to grant a refund of Rs. 3,62,636 for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 3,62,970 for AY 2017-18 to the petitioner? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the aforesaid refunds under Section 244A(1) and Section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant the refunds and the statutory interest thereon, as their representation dated July 25, 2025, remained unconsidered. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel appeared, and both parties jointly submitted that an OGE was passed after the petition was filed and that the petitioner had made a subsequent representation. No specific arguments on the merits of the refund or interest claims were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A(1),Section 244A(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45461 WP No. 16367 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16367 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

BALAJI ENTERPRISES, 234, SV LANE, GARUDACHAR COMPLEX, CHICKPET, BANGALORE – 560 053 PAN: AACFB 5117 F A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 AND REPRESENTED BY MR. V PARASMAL, PARTNER OF THE (PARTNERSHIP FIRM INDIAN ACT, 1882) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDHEENDRA B. R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(3), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 2, BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095

3.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, POST BAG NO 1, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE, BENGALURU – 560 500 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45461 WP No. 16367 of 2025

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHERWISE, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO 1 AND 3 TO GRANT REFUND OF RS. 3,62,636 AND RS. 3,62,970 FOR AY, 2010-11 AND AY 2017-18 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE - E6, M, F2 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(A) Issue in so far as the Petitioner is concerned an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the Respondent No.1 and 3 to grant refund of Rs.3,62,636 and Rs.3,62,970 for AY 2010-11 and AY 2017-18 respectively vide Annexure – E6, Annexure-M and Annexure-F2. (B) Issue in so far as the Petitioner is concerned an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the Respondent No.1 and 3 to grant interest on refund under section 244A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2010-11 and AY 2017- 18 till the date of credit of the refund to the Petitioner’s bank account vide Annexure-E6, Annexure-M and Annexure-F2. (C) Issue in so far as the Petitioner is concerned an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the Respondent No.1 and 3 to

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45461 WP No. 16367 of 2025

grant interest on refund under section 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 till the date of credit of the refund to the Petitioner’s bank account vide Annexure-E6, Annexure-M and Annexure-F2. And (D) Passing such other or further orders as this Honourable High Court may think fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that after the present petition was filed on 21.06.2025, an Order Giving Effect To (OGE) was passed on 07.07.2025 and the petitioner has subsequently given the representation dated 25.07.2025, which has not been considered by the respondents so far. 4. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45461 WP No. 16367 of 2025

appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 25.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including approaching this Court, if occasion, so arises. 6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

More judgments on Section 244A(1A)

All 32 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →