SH. SATISH BANSAL ERSTWHILE PARTNER OF NOW DISSOLVED PARTNERSHIP FIRM KANAK EXPORTS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52 1 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5449/2025HC DelhiDLHC01024233202528 April 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 Respondents (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others) to disburse the refund of Rs. 22,72,240/- along with applicable interest to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. This direction was contingent upon the verification of the Petitioner's entitlement to the refund. The Court further clarified that if the concerned authorities were of the view that the Petitioner was not entitled to the refund for any reason, they were to communicate this decision to the Petitioner. The Court explicitly reserved all rights and contentions of the parties, meaning this order did not preclude future disputes on other matters. The principle established is that tax authorities should process refunds expeditiously when there are no apparent legal impediments and the applicant provides necessary documentation like no objection certificates from other stakeholders.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sh. Satish Bansal, formerly a partner of the dissolved partnership firm Kanak Exports, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. He sought a direction for the refund of Rs. 22,72,240/- along with applicable interest for Assessment Year 2009-2010. The petitioner contended that the refund was due to the firm, and as the firm had been dissolved, and all other partners had provided no objection certificates for disbursal to him, the refund should be paid to him. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged that if there were no grounds to withhold the refund, the application would be processed expeditiously.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction for the refund of Rs. 22,72,240/- along with applicable interest for Assessment Year 2009-2010, considering the dissolution of the partnership firm and the no objection certificates from other partners. Assessee's Contentions: The Petitioner argued that the refund is legitimately due to the dissolved partnership firm, Kanak Exports. He further submitted that he was a constituent partner at the material time. Crucially, all other erstwhile partners of the firm have furnished no objection certificates, thereby consenting to the disbursal of the refund to the Petitioner. This implies that there are no inter-partner disputes regarding the refund. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, fairly stated that if there were no valid grounds for withholding the refund, the Petitioner's application for the same would be processed expeditiously. This indicates that the Revenue did not raise any specific objections to the refund itself but indicated a procedural willingness to process it if no impediments existed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5449/2025 CM APPL. 24839/2025 SH. SATISH BANSAL ERSTWHILE PARTNER OF NOW DISSOLVED PARTNERSHIP FIRM KANAK EXPORTS

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52 1 & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSC, Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC, Ms. Yashika Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

28.04.2025

1.

Issue notice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue accepts notice. 2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that a direction be issued to the Respondents to refund an amount of Rs.22,72,240/- in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2009-2010, alongwith the applicable interest. It is the Petitioner’s case that there is no dispute that the refund is due to M/s Kanak Exports, the partnership firm, of which the Petitioner was a constituent partner at the material time. The firm has since been dissolved, and all the other partners have furnished a no objection certificate for disbursal of the refund to the Petitioner. 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 22:14:51

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent fairly states that if there is no ground for withholding the refund, the Petitioner’s application for the same would be processed expeditiously. 4. In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by directing the Respondents to disburse the refund to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date, after verifying the Petitioner’s entitlement to such refund. 5. In the event the concerned authorities are of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to the said refund for any reason, the same would be communicated to the Petitioner. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 7. We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 28, 2025/KG

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 22:14:51

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →