ACI WORLDWIDE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/19120/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01041918202511 September 2025Bench: M.NAGAPRASANNA5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the respondents had submitted that an order determining the refund had been passed during the subsistence of the petition, rendering it infructuous. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged this but pointed out that the order was 40 days old and no refund had been received, requesting a direction for the release of the refund within a timeline. The Court observed that what remained was only the release of the determined refund amount. Therefore, the Court directed that the refund amount determined shall be released in favour of the petitioner within an outer limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier. With these observations, the petition was disposed of. No specific issue was left undecided, as the core grievance of delay in refund was addressed by a time-bound direction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, ACI Worldwide Solutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a mandamus to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to give effect to orders passed by the ITAT and CIT(A) for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 and AY 2014-15, and to refund taxes paid under protest. The petitioner also sought effect to a CIT(A) order for AY 2024-25 and refund of taxes paid under protest. The petition was filed on 11th September 2025. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, submitted that an order determining the refund had been passed during the pendency of the petition, rendering it infructuous. The petitioner's counsel stated that the order was 40 days old and no refund had been received, requesting a direction for refund within a timeline.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to give effect to the orders of the ITAT and CIT(A) for AY 2005-06 and AY 2014-15, and refund taxes paid under protest, as per Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to give effect to the CIT(A) order for AY 2024-25 and refund taxes paid under protest. 3. Whether the High Court should direct the respondent to grant refund along with interest as stipulated under Section 244A(1) & 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2005-2006 and AY 2014-15. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite ITAT and CIT(A) orders being passed, the refund had not been processed, and therefore, a direction was necessary for the release of the refund within a specified timeline. The petitioner relied on the orders of the ITAT and CIT(A) for AY 2005-06 and AY 2014-15, and the CIT(A) order for AY 2024-25. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that an order determining the refund had been passed during the pendency of the petition, and therefore, the petition had become infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36173 WP No. 19120 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19120 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

ACI WORLDWIDE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED NO 9, SALARPURIA CAMBRIGE MALL CAMBRIDGE ROAD ULSOOR BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MRS JYOTHSNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O MR BOLA MANOHAR SHETTY COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR J. JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36173 WP No. 19120 of 2025

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TP CIRCLE 1(1)(1) 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE AS FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHERWISE, TO LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT TO PASS ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS OF ITAT AND CIT(A) FOR AY 2005-06 DATED 31.10.2016 AND 24.09.2024 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE -A AND ANNEXURE -B AND REFUND THE TAXES PAID UNDER PROTEST AS PER THE COMPUTATION FILED ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 13.06.2025 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE -F AND ETC.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36173 WP No. 19120 of 2025

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "A. Issue as far as Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, to the Learned First Respondent to pass order giving effect to the orders of ITAT and CIT(A) for AY 2005-06 dated 31-10-2016 and 24.09.2024 enclosed as Annexure A and Annexure B and refund the taxes paid under protest as per the computation filed along with the letter dated 13.06.2025 enclosed as Annexure-F. B. Issue as far as Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, to the Learned First Respondent to pass order giving effect to CIT(A) order dated 31.08.2018 for AY 2024-25 enclosed as Annexure G and refund the taxes paid under protest as per the computation filed along with the letter dated 13.06.2025 as Annexure K. C. Issue as far as Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, direction the learned Respondent to grant refund along with interest as stipulated under section 244A(1) & 244A(1A) for AY 2005-2006, AY 2014-15.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36173 WP No. 19120 of 2025

D. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including the cost of this writ petition."

2.

Heard Sri. Narendra Kumar J. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M. Dilip, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that during the subsistence of the petition, an order is passed by the first respondent determining refund. 4. In the light of the said order, the learned counsel would submit that petition is rendered infructuous. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order is 40 days old and no refund is yet reached the coffers of the petitioner. 6. In that light, he would submit that a direction be issued for release of refund within a timeline. 7. In the light of the order being passed of refund, what remains is only the release. Therefore, the refund amount

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36173 WP No. 19120 of 2025

that is determined shall be released in favour of the petitioner within an outer limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 101

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →