MOL CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15882/2022HC DelhiDLHC01043029202218 November 2022Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, considering the limited prayer sought in the writ petitions, disposed of the matters. The Court directed the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others) to pass the necessary appeal effect orders and to release the refund along with applicable interest to the petitioner's bank account. This action was to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order. The Court also listed the matters for compliance on May 4, 2023. The core reasoning was to ensure compliance with statutory provisions related to appeal effect and refund, as highlighted by the petitioner, and to remedy the delay in providing the due relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, MOL Corporation, filed three writ petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others) to pass appeal effect orders and release refunds with interest. These refunds were due for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, pursuant to orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on February 14, 2020, which were subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The petitioner contended that despite multiple follow-ups, the revenue had failed to issue the appeal effect orders and release the legally due refund, causing grave injustice. The petitions were filed in 2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents have failed to comply with their statutory obligation under Section 153(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to pass appeal effect orders within the prescribed time after receiving the ITAT's order, and under Section 240 of the Act to refund amounts due without claim. Assessee's Contentions: - Section 153(5) mandates the Assessing Officer to pass an appeal effect order within three months of receiving the ITAT order. - Section 240 mandates the refund of amounts resulting from an appellate order without requiring a taxpayer claim. - Despite multiple follow-ups, the respondents have retained the refund without valid reasons, causing grave injustice. - Relied on the Taxpayer's Charter (August 13, 2020) and High Court judgments in Nokia Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors., Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors., and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc vs. DCIT & Ors. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions recorded in the judgment for the revenue regarding the delay in passing appeal effect orders or releasing refunds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153(5),Section 240,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 15882/2022
W.P.(C) 15905/2022
W.P.(C) 15906/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~34, 36 & 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 15882/2022 W.P.(C) 15905/2022 W.P.(C) 15906/2022

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 18.11.2022 C.M.No.49444/2022 in W.P.(C) 15882/2022 C.M.No.49491/2022 in W.P.(C) 15905/2022 C.M.No.49492/2022 in W.P.(C) 15906/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 15882/2022 W.P.(C) 15905/2022 W.P.(C) 15906/2022 Present writ petitions have been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to pass appeal effect orders giving effect to the orders dated 14th February, 2020 for the Assessment Years [AYs] 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.6195/Del/2018, ITA No.6196/Del/2018 and ITA No. 6197/Del/2018 respectively, subsequently affirmed by this Court in ITA No.251/2022, 252/2022 and 253/2022. Petitioner also seeks release of refund amount along with interest in the Petitioner’s bank account.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Section 153(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) clearly stipulates that an order giving effect to an order passed by ITAT under Section 254 of the Act is to be passed by the Assessing Officer within a period of three months from the end of the month in which such order is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. He further states that Section 240 of the Act mandates refund of amount resulting from an order passed in appeal without any claim from taxpayer. He states that despite multiple follow-ups through various submissions, emails and meetings, Respondents have continued to retain the refund legally due to the Petitioner in relation to the AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 without assigning any cogent reason whatsoever, resulting in grave injustice to the Petitioner. In support of his submission, he relies on the Taxpayer’s Charter announced on 13th August, 2020 and judgments of this Court in Nokia Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors: W.P.(C) 14070/2020; Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors.: W.P.(C) 15030/2021; Qualcomm Technologies, Inc vs. DCIT & Ors.: W.P.(C) 2146 & 21583/2022. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the UOI. Keeping in view the limited prayer sought in the present writ petitions, the same are disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to pass appeal effect orders as well as release the refund along with interest in the Petitioner’s bank account within twelve weeks.

List the matters for compliance on 4th May, 2023. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J NOVEMBER 18, 2022 KA

More judgments on Section 153(5)

All 52 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →