INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 1 NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/11517/2023HC DelhiDLHC01034154202331 August 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the undue delay in disposing of the rectification application, also noted the petitioner's own delay in approaching the Court, which was over seven years. The Court directed the concerned officer to dispose of the rectification application within four weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment. However, considering the delay and laches, the Court held that interest on the refund between the expiry of the statutory six-month period and October 9, 2019 (the date of the first representation to the respondent, as noted in the judgment) ought not to be paid to the petitioner. The operative direction was to dispose of the application within four weeks, with a specific rider on the interest payable.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Intertek India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the inaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10, New Delhi, in disposing of its rectification application dated May 25, 2016. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the application and grant consequential refund with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent's counsel accepted notice and agreed to argue the matter based on the existing record without filing a counter-affidavit. The Court noted that the rectification application had been pending for over seven years, significantly exceeding the statutory timelines prescribed under Sections 154(1) and 154(8) of the Act, which stipulate a six-month period for disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authority has failed to discharge its statutory duty by not disposing of the petitioner's rectification application dated 25.05.2016 within the prescribed timelines under Sections 154(1) and 154(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Instruction No. 1 of 2016. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its rectification application, filed on May 25, 2016, has not been disposed of despite the statutory period of six months expiring long ago. The petitioner sought a direction for disposal and consequential refund with interest. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not file a counter-affidavit, agreeing to argue based on the available record. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the rectification application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C)No.11517/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 31.08.2023

+ W.P.(C) 11517/2023

INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney with Mr Nihil Agarwal and Mr Puru Medhira, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 1 NEW DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

1.

Issue notice. 2. Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, accepts notice. 3. Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Maratha says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the Court. 3.1 Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 4. The substantial prayer made in the writ petition, in essence, articulates Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:08.09.2023 21:15:50 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C)No.11517/2023 Page 2 of 3

the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the prayer made is set forth hereafter:

“(a) Issue a Writ of mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the Respondent to dispose of Petitioner’s Rectification Application dated 25.05.2016 within a period of four weeks and grant consequential refund along with applicable interest under Section 244A of the Act within the said four weeks.”

5.

A perusal of the prayer clause would show that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that its rectification application dated 25.05.2016 has not been disposed of, as yet. 6. As rightly averred by the petitioner, the timeline fixed under sections 154(a) and 154(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”], is six

(6) months. The period involved goes way beyond the statutory timeline fixed for the disposal of a rectification application. This is also the position that obtains as per Instruction No.1 of 2016 dated 15.02.2016. 7. That said, we find it difficult to understand why the petitioner did not approach the Court within a reasonable period. Repeated representations to the Assessing Officer (AO) and grievances sought cannot explain, in our view, the delay and laches in approaching the Court. The period involved is more than seven (7) years. 7.1 Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (i) The concerned officer will dispose of the rectification application within four (4) weeks of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:08.09.2023 21:15:50 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C)No.11517/2023 Page 3 of 3

(ii) The AO will bear in mind that the first representation to the respondent was made on 09.10.2019. We are therefore, of the opinion that interest between the period after the expiry of six (6) months from when the rectification application was filed and 09.10.2019 in the facts of this case, ought not to be paid to the petitioner. 8. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

AUGUST 31, 2023 / tr Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:08.09.2023 21:15:50 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →