WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - OSD, RANGE - 10, NEW DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/10051/2023HC DelhiDLHC01029184202308 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the writ petitions had become infructuous. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who apprised the Court that the refund had been duly processed and received. Consequently, the Court found that nothing further survived in the instant writ petitions. The ratio decidendi is that when the subject matter of a writ petition, such as the non-processing of a refund, is resolved during the pendency of the petition, the petition becomes infructuous and stands disposed of. No specific operative directions were issued beyond disposing of the petitions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Whirlpool of India Ltd., filed two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 10051/2023 and W.P.(C) 11121/2023) before the Delhi High Court. The petitions were filed against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 10, New Delhi, and other respondents. The core of the dispute, though not explicitly detailed in terms of assessment years or specific amounts, concerned issues that led the petitioner to seek relief from the High Court. The procedural history indicates that these were writ petitions, suggesting an attempt to resolve tax-related grievances outside the regular appellate channels.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petitions had become infructuous. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the refund in question had been processed and received. Consequently, the Court did not need to decide on the substantive tax disputes that might have led to the filing of the writ petitions. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment, as the matter was disposed of based on the petitioner's submission regarding the refund.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 10051/2023
W.P.(C) 11121/2023

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

$~57 & 58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10051/2023

WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Tapas Ram Misra,

Mr.Abhimanyu Jhamba,

Ms.Thonpinao Thangal,

Ms.Hatneimawi and Mr.Shivam

Prashar, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - OSD,

RANGE - 10, NEW DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Shlok Chandra, Sr.SC with

Ms.Madhavi Shukla, Jr.SC,

Ms.Priya Sarkar, Jr.SC and

Mr.Sudarshan Roy, Adv. 58 + W.P.(C) 11121/2023

WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Tapas Ram Misra,

Mr.Abhimanyu Jhamba,

Ms.Thonpinao Thangal,

Ms.Hatneimawi and Mr.Shivam

Prashar, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD

RANGE 10 & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr.Shlok Chandra, Sr.SC with

Ms.Madhavi Shukla, Jr.SC,

Ms.Priya Sarkar, Jr.SC and

Mr.Sudarshan Roy, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR

KAURAV 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 15/04/2024 at 12:05:42

O R D E R %

08.04.2024

1.

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner apprises us that the refund has been duly processed and received and that consequently, nothing further survives in the instant writ petitions. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petitions shall stand disposed of as having rendered infructuous.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. APRIL 08, 2024/MJ

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 15/04/2024 at 12:05:42

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →