MAXIM INDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/24073/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01055788202306 February 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for interest on the refund in terms of Section 244A(1)(a) and 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in accordance with law. The respondent was given a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to consider the claim. The petitioner was also directed to submit a fresh representation with full particulars of the claim within two weeks. The rectification application filed by the petitioner was to be disposed of by the respondent expeditiously within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court did not make a specific finding on the merits of the claim but directed the respondent to consider it.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. The petitioner requested the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, to grant interest on a refund until the date of actual payment, as stipulated under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. This was to give effect to an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order dated 05.07.2019 in IT (TP) A No. 287/Bang/2014. The petitioner received a refund on 28.10.2022, but the interest was calculated only up to 10.08.2021, which the petitioner contended was contrary to Sections 244A(1)(a) and 244A(1)(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refund amount till the date of actual payment, as per Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the ITAT order dated 05.07.2019? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the interest granted on the refund was only up to 10.08.2021, which is contrary to Section 244A(1)(b) and Section 244A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, interest should be paid until the actual date of refund payment. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-revenue submitted that if reasonable time is granted, they would consider the petitioner's claim for refund in accordance with the law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:5094 WP No. 24073 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24073 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MAXIM INDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED S 51/2/3/4, S39/5, 4TH FLOOR, COMMERCIAL MANTRI, TOWER B, DB HALLI KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560103, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR VIMAL CHANDRAKANT BHATT S/O MR CHANDRAKANT MOHANLAL BHATT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR JAYANTILAL JAIN.,ADVOCATE) AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 4(1)(1), 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SUSHAL TIWARI,ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AS FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHERWISE, TO THE LEARNED RESPONDENT TO GRANT INTEREST ON REFUND TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF REFUND AS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 244A BY PASSING RECTIFICATION ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ITAT ORDER DATED 05/07/2019 IN IT (TP)ANO 287/BANG/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:5094 WP No. 24073 of 2023

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“ A. Issue as far as Petitioner is concerned by any appropriate writ or Order in nature of Mandamus or otherwise, to the learned Respondent to grant interest on refund till the date of actual payment of refund as stipulated under Section 244A by passing rectification order giving effect to the ITAT Order dated: 05.07.2019 in I.T.(TP) A No.287/Bang/2014 as per Annexure-A.

B. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including cost of this writ petition. “

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the ITAT, the respondent has granted refund on 28.10.2022 in favour of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the interest granted in his favour on the refund amount is only upto 10.08.2021 and not subsequently, which is contrary to Section 244A(1)(b) of the I.T.Act as well as Section 244A(1)(a) of the I.T.Act and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue submits that if reasonable time is granted, they would consider the

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:5094 WP No. 24073 of 2023

claim of the petitioner for refund as stated supra in accordance with law.

4.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner as sought for by him in terms of Section 244A(1)(a) and 244A(1)(b) of the I.T.Act and in accordance with law bearing in mind the relevant statutory provisions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is also directed to submit a fresh / new representation giving full particulars of the claim within a period of two weeks from today. So also, the rectification application filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of by the respondent as expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- JUDGE

Srl.

More judgments on Section 244A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →