M/S MERCK LIFE SCIENCE PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/27552/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01059644202511 December 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order, directed the respondent-authority to consider the applications filed by the petitioner seeking refund claims for AY 2012-13 and AY 2016-17, along with applicable interest. The court mandated that this consideration and passing of necessary orders should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court also reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate application for direction if the occasion arises. The specific issue of the illegal adjustment of Rs. 7,51,19,562/- was implicitly to be considered as part of the overall refund claim processing. The court did not delve into the merits of the refund claims themselves but focused on directing the authority to act on the pending applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Merck Life Science Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a writ of mandamus. The petition challenges the inaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (respondent) in not processing refund applications for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 and AY 2016-17. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 3,38,88,937/- for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 8,82,5,376/- for AY 2016-17, along with applicable interest. Additionally, the petitioner sought the refund of an illegally adjusted amount of Rs. 7,51,19,562/- representing the refund of AY 2016-17 against non-existent demands for AY 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2010-11. The applications for these refunds were submitted on January 14, 2020, and April 21, 2023, respectively, and had not been considered by the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authority has failed to consider the refund applications filed by the petitioner for AY 2012-13 and AY 2016-17, and consequently, whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondent to grant the refund and applicable interest under Section 244A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their refund applications for AY 2012-13 and AY 2016-17, submitted on 14.01.2020 and 21.04.2023 respectively, have not been considered by the respondent, and no order has been passed thereon. They sought a direction to grant the refunds and interest, and also to refund an illegally adjusted amount. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel submitted that if reasonable time is granted, they would consider and pass necessary orders on the said applications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52875 WP No. 27552 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27552 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S MERCK LIFE SCIENCE PVT LTD NO.50A, 2ND PHASE, RING ROAD PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES S O BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE – 560 058. (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI DHANANJAY SINGH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O B P SINGH INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TATA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE) AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1)(1) BMTC BUILDING 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHERWISE, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT REFUND OF RS. 3,38,88,937/- FOR THE AY 2012-13 AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE B AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52875 WP No. 27552 of 2025

ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

“ (A) Issue ads far as the petitioner is concerned an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the Respondent to grant refund of Rs.3,38,88,937/- for the AY 2012-13 as per the return of income enclosed in Annexure-B;

(B) Issue as far as the petitioner is concerned an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the Respondent to grant interest on refund of Rs.2,74,50,039/- as stipulated under Section 244A(1) (a) for the AY 2012-13;

(c) Issue as far the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus or otherwise directing the respondent to refund the illegal adjustment of Rs. 7,51,19,562/- representing refund of AY 2016-17 against the non existing demands for AY 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2010-11;

(D) Issue as far as the petitioner is concerned an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the Respondent to grant refund of Rs.8,82,5,376/- for the AY 2016-17 as per the return of income enclosed in Annexure-A;

(E) Issue as far as the petitioner is concerned an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the Respondent to grant interest on refund of Rs.5,03,02,714/- as stipulated under Section 244A(1) (a) for the AY 2016-17;

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52875 WP No. 27552 of 2025

AND

(F) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including the costs of this writ petition.”

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his application at Annexure-A dated 14.01.2020 seeking refund of tax for the assessment year 2016-17 and application at Annexure-B dated 21.04.2023 seeking refund of tax for the assessment year 2012-13 submitted to the respondent-authority has not been considered so far by them nor any order has been passed on the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if reasonable time is given, they would consider and pass necessary orders on the said applications. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival submissions, the respondent-authority is hereby directed to consider the aforesaid applications at Annexures-A and B seeking

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52875 WP No. 27552 of 2025

refund claim of the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2016-17 together with applicable interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file appropriate application for direction, if the occasion so arises. 6. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

Srl.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →