MAHADEVA vs. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

WP/15907/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01029776202524 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the petition by issuing directions to the respondents. The Court directed the respondents to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioner in excess of 20% of the tax amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court's reasoning was based on the joint submission made by both sides, acknowledging the petitioner's claim for refund of the excess deposit pending appeal and the revenue's willingness to comply within a timeframe. The ratio of the decision is that where an assessee has deposited a portion of the disputed tax demand pending appeal, and the revenue agrees to refund the excess deposit, the court can direct such refund within a specified period.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahadeva, an individual, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order dated March 31, 2015, for Assessment Year 2009-10. The petitioner had appealed this order before the first appellate authority, where the appeal was pending. As part of the appeal process, the petitioner deposited 20% of the impugned tax demand. Subsequently, the petitioner requested a refund of the balance amount of Rs. 26,64,668/-, after accounting for the 20% deposit, pending the disposal of the appeal. As this request was not met, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking various writs, including a mandamus to issue the refund and to quash a demand raised by the Income Tax Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amount deposited in excess of 20% of the tax demand, pending the disposal of the appeal before the first appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the refund of tax amounts and the appellate process). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of the balance amount of Rs. 26,64,668/- after depositing 20% of the impugned tax demand, as their appeal was pending before the first appellate authority and the respondents had not complied with their request for refund. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if reasonable time is granted, they would refund the entire amount in excess of 20% deposited by the petitioner within a stipulated timeframe.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42131 WP No. 15907 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 15907 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MAHADEVA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61YEARS R/A 2617 MAHESHWARI NILAYA, DFO ROAD, KOLLEGALA KOLLEGALA – 571 440.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. PRATIBHA.R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

OFFICE OF ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) AND TPS

ROOM NO.113, 1ST FLOOR,

AAYAKAR BHAVAN, REAC

MYSORE – 570 008.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

NFAC, NORTH BLOCK, DELHI -110 001. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO ISSUE A REFUND AS PER MENTIONED AT IN LETTER DATED 24.07.2024 AY-2009-10 FILED BEFORE 1 RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-E.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42131 WP No. 15907 of 2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ (a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to issue a refund as per mentioned at in letter dated: 24.07.2024 AY-2009-10 filed before 1st Respondent Annexure-E.

(b) as being perverse, illegal and unsustainable in law, thereby directing 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent to cancel the demand raised through the letter issued of the Act in ITBA/RCV/F/101/2024-25/1067216252(1) dated: 01.08.2024 AY-2009-10(ANNEXURE-D)

(C) Issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition /Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the operation of the impugned orders passed by 1st Respondent dated: 31.03.2015 AY-2009-10 (Annexure-A) in and direct the Respondent to issue a refund to the petitioner.

(d) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned demand made and adjusted with current year refund by the 1st Respondent in ITBA/RCV/F/101/2024-25/1067216252(1) dated: 01.08.2024 AY-2009-10 (Annexure-D).

(e) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42131 WP No. 15907 of 2025

(f) Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon’ble Court Deems fit, and

(g) Direct the Respondent to award the costs of this writ petition.”

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents – Revenue and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents passed the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has approached the 1st Appellate authority, before whom the appeal is pending consideration. In the said appeal, the petitioner has deposited 20% of the impugned tax demand by way of an adjustment. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the 1st Appellate authority to refund the balance amount of Rs.26,64,668/- after adjusting 20% of the tax demand till disposal of the appeal by the 1st Appellate authority. Since the said request was not complied with by the respondents, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42131 WP No. 15907 of 2025

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is granted, they would refund the entire amount in excess / over and above 20% deposited by the petitioner within a stipulated timeframe.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the joint submission made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions to the respondents in this regard.

In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby disposed of.

(ii) The respondents are directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioner in excess / over and above 20% of the tax amount deposited by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

Srl.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →