M/S CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/2495/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01004242202528 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the first respondent. The matter was remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on 17.11.2025 at 2:30 p.m. The Court directed the refund of Rs. 5,95,28,624/- along with applicable interest to the petitioner within two weeks of receiving the order. The deposit of the remaining amount was made subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The first respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for waiver/dispensation of the 20% pre-deposit, keeping in mind the judgments in Flipkart India (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – (2017) 79 Taxmann.Com. 159 (KAR) and M/s. InstaKart Services Private Limited vs. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) & others – W.P.No.464/2022 Dated 23.07.2024, within two months from 17.11.2025. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to pursue further remedies if not satisfied with the interest granted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Cashfree Payments India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner contended that the notice for personal hearing issued on 08.03.2024 for appearance on 09.03.2024 was insufficient to present their case regarding waiver of 20% tax deposit for an appeal pending before the first appellate authority. The petitioner also claimed that despite an interim stay order on the disputed demand, the respondents proceeded with recovery, and sought a refund of the entire amount. The respondents acknowledged a lack of coordination and miscommunication leading to the inadvertent appropriation of the entire tax demand and interest, and proposed setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for reconsideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice of personal hearing issued by the first respondent, dated 08.03.2024, requiring appearance on 09.03.2024, was sufficient for the petitioner to present their submissions regarding the waiver of the 20% tax deposit for their pending appeal before the first appellate authority? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the recovery of the entire disputed demand amount, along with interest, despite an interim order of stay granted by the High Court, was illegal, and if so, is the petitioner entitled to a refund of the entire amount? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The notice for personal hearing was insufficient, preventing them from making submissions on the waiver of the 20% pre-deposit. - Recovery of the entire demand with interest, despite a stay order, was illegal, and they are entitled to a refund. Revenue's Contentions: - Due to lack of co-ordination and miscommunication, the entire tax demand and interest were inadvertently appropriated by the 5th respondent. - The petition may be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for reconsideration, with a direction to refund the excess amount. Authorities/Precedents Relied On: - Assessee referred to the impugned order and the interim order of stay. - Revenue acknowledged miscommunication and sought reconsideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text as being discussed or relied upon for substantive legal arguments, other than constitutional articles related to the writ petition itself.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43170 WP No. 2495 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2495 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED UNDER REGISTERED COMPANIES ACT NO 6-B 1ST FLOOR, ESSAE, VAISHNAVI SUMMIT 80 FEET ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, 7TH MAIN KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034 RERESETNED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI REEJU DATTA AGED ABOUT 34YEARS R/AT 34C, PLOT C -72 NILIGIRI 1, SECTOR34, NOIDA GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH - 201 301.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GANESH.V. SHANDAGE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

BENGALURU 2, BMTC BULIDNG

80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK

NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE

KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITO WARD, 5()12)(1) BANGALORE

BMTC BUILIDNG, 80FT ROAD F

6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU – 560 095.

ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43170 WP No. 2495 of 2025

E RAMP, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI -110 003.

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER

OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1) BMTC BUILDNG, 80 FEET ROAD,

6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

1ST FLLIR, PRESTIGE ALPHA

NO.48/1, 48/2, BERATENAAGRAHARA BEGUR HOSUR ROAD, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI

BENGALURU -560 100.

(AS PER COURT ORDER DATED: 04.09.2025

AMENDED R-5)

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4 SRI. ARAVIND.V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070492467(1) DATED 20.11.2024 HEREIN ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, AS BEING MANIFESTLY ILLEGAL, INVALID, NULL AND VOID, UNJUST, UNFAIR, ARBITRARY, IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

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 a Writ of Certiorari, or such other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order passed by the

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43170 WP No. 2495 of 2025

Respondent No. 1 bearing DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070492467(1) dated 20.11.2024 herein enclosed and marked as Annexure-A, as being manifestly illegal, invalid, null & void, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

B) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or such other Writ, Order or direction, as this Honourable Court may deem fit, restraining Respondent No. 4 from precipitating any coercive recovery proceedings in pursuance of Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No. 1 bearing DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070492467(1) dated 20.11.2024 herein enclosed and marked as Annexure-A; and & Letter No.

C) Pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity, including the costs of writ petition.”

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent in order to point out that notice of personal hearing through video conferencing was issued

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43170 WP No. 2495 of 2025

by him only on 08.03.2024 asking him to appear on 09.03.2024 was not sufficient for the petitioner to appear before him and make his submissions regarding his request to waive / dispense with deposit of 20% of the tax demand for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal filed by him, which is pending before the first Appellate Authority. It is also submitted that though this Court passed the interim order of stay in relation to the entire disputed demand amount on 17.04.2025 in the present petition, the respondents have proceeded to recover the entire amount together with interest is illegal and petitioner is entitled for refund of the entire amount. In this regard, an application I.A.2/2025 is filed by the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for 5th respondent jointly submit that due to lack of co-ordination and miscommunication, the 5th respondent inadvertently appropriated the entire tax demand amount along with interest from the petitioner and the present petition may be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and by directing the 4th respondent to refund

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43170 WP No. 2495 of 2025

the entire amount in excess of 20% back to the petitioner within a stipulated timeframe.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the joint submissions made by both sides and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his contentions before the 1st respondent, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh by issuing certain directions.

In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 20.11.2024 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the 1st respondent either physically or through video conferencing on 17.11.2025 at 2.30 p.m.

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43170 WP No. 2495 of 2025

(v) A sum of Rs.5,95,28,624/- together with applicable interest is directed to be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(vi) The deposit of remaining amount shall be subject to final outcome of the proceedings before the 1st appellate authority.

(vii) The 1st respondent shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner for waiver / dispensation of 20% pre-deposit bearing in mind the judgments of this Court in the cases of (i) Flipcart India (P.) Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – (2017) 79 Taxmann.Com. 159 (KAR) and (ii) M/s.InstaKart Services Private Limited vs. The Prl.Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) & others – W.P.No.464/2022 Dated 23.07.2024 within a period of two months from 17.11.2025. (viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including approaching this Court subsequently in the event the petitioner is not satisfied with the interest granted by respondent No.1.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl. Retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 24.11.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →