JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/12372/2024HC DelhiDLHC01057630202407 October 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the statement made by the Revenue. The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the challan generated for the refund requires modification to reflect the petitioner's name. This modification process is expected to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The Revenue further assured that the refund due to the petitioner would be processed along with the applicable interest within the stipulated eight-week period. Consequently, the Court found no further orders necessary beyond recording the undertaking given by the Revenue. The petition was disposed of in terms of this statement, binding the respondents to their assurance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jindal Stainless Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant a refund of Rs. 2,32,70,20,788. This refund was determined/assessed vide an order dated 08.04.2024 under section 170A read with section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the refund was not disbursed due to procedural issues arising from the recording of the name of the amalgamating entity. The National Company Law Tribunal had approved a composite scheme of amalgamation where several companies merged with the petitioner. The assessment order was passed under Section 170A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,32,70,20,788 as determined by the assessment order dated 08.04.2024 for AY 2021-22, along with applicable interest? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 170A and Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the refund was due but not disbursed due to procedural issues related to the amalgamation of entities, specifically the recording of the amalgamating entity's name. They sought a direction for immediate disbursement. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, on instructions, stated that a modification of the challan was required to reflect the petitioner's name, and this process would be completed within eight weeks. They assured that the refund would be processed along with applicable interest within this period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 170A,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12372/2024

JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal and Mr. Abhishek Singhvi, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yogit Pareek, JSC for Income Tax. Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R %

07.10.2024

1.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia praying as under: “a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to grant forthwith refund of Rs.2,32, 70,20, 788 as determined/ assessed vide order dated 08.04.2024 under section 170A read with section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2021-22, along with up-to-date applicable interest (as per law);” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:31:33

2.

It is the petitioner’s case that the refund due to it has not been disbursed on account of certain procedural issues, resulting from recording the name of the amalgamating entity. The National Company Law Tribunal had, by an order dated 02.02.2023, approved the composite scheme of amalgamation whereby M/s Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited, M/s JSL Lifestyle Limited, M/s JSL Media Limited and M/s Jindal Stainless Corporate Management Services Private Limited were merged with the petitioner company (Jindal Stainless Limited). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states, on instructions, that the challan generated requires a modification to reflect it in the petitioner’s name, and the said process should be completed within a period of eight weeks from date. He states that the refund due to the petitioner shall be processed within the said period along with the applicable interest. 4. In view of the said statement, no further orders are required to be passed, except to record that the respondents shall be bound down by the said statement made on their behalf. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 07, 2024 ‘A’

Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:31:33

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →