M/S REMOTE INFOSYSTEM PVT LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2628/2025HC DelhiDLHC01010735202527 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned authority to verify the challans submitted by the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner has indeed paid any excess amount and there are no other impediments to processing the refund, the respondent authority is directed to refund the excess amount to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court further stipulated that if the authority concludes that the refund cannot be processed, it must inform the petitioner in writing of the reasons. The petitioner retains the right to pursue further legal remedies if they disagree with the authority's decision. The primary principle established is that excess tax paid due to procedural or clerical errors, where acknowledged by the revenue, should be refunded promptly, subject to verification and absence of other legal impediments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Remote Infosystem Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Income Tax Officer and another respondent to issue a refund of excess tax payment amounting to Rs. 1,22,54,895/- for Assessment Years 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24, along with interest. The petitioner contended that it had deposited certain amounts under an incorrect head on March 8, 2024, and subsequently deposited the correct amounts under the appropriate head on March 22, 2024. The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the excess deposit was erroneously made and should be refunded. The High Court was thus asked to direct the refund process.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess amount deposited under an incorrect head for Assessment Years 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24, and consequently, whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to process such refund along with interest, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that it had made an excess deposit of Rs. 1,22,54,895/- due to depositing funds under an incorrect head on March 8, 2024, and later depositing the correct amount under the proper head on March 22, 2024. They sought a refund of this excess payment with interest. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, fairly stated that the present petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to process the refund in a time-bound manner, acknowledging the erroneous deposit.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2628/2025 & CM APPL. 12490/2025

M/S REMOTE INFOSYSTEM PVT LTD

.....Petitioner Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai and Mr. Sarthak Tripathi, Advs. Versus

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Sakashi Shairwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Akshat Singh, Nr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Vipin Acharya, Jr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Priya Sarkar, Jr Standing Counsel, Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

27.03.2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue refund of excess payment of regular income tax assessment amount of Rs. 1,22,54,895/- for the Assessment Year 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 alongwith up-to-date interest as the action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act.”

2.

It is the petitioner’s case that it had deposited an amount in excess of its liability. The petitioner, therefore, seeks refund of the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had 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 01/07/2025 at 18:38:23

deposited certain amount vide some challans dated 08.03.2024 [Annexure P- 2 (Colly)] under an incorrect head. Thereafter, the petitioner had, once again, deposited the amount vide challans dated 22.03.2024 [Annexure P-3 (Colly)] under the correct head. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner had erroneously deposited an amount under the incorrect head and the same is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for Revenue fairly states that the present petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to process the refund in a time bound manner. 5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the concerned authority to verify the challans as annexed to the present petition. If it is found that the petitioner has paid any excess amount, and there is no other impediment in refunding the same, the respondent would refund the excess amount to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date. 6. In the event, the concerned authority comes to the conclusion that the refund cannot be processed, the authority shall inform the reasons for the same, in writing, to the petitioner. Needless to state, if the petitioner is not agreeable to the same, the petitioner would be entitled to avail its remedies in accordance with law. VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 27, 2025 acm

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 01/07/2025 at 18:38:23

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →