TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3

WP/3480/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01007984202305 November 2024Bench: M.I.ARUN2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated 05.11.2024, did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioner's claim for a refund. Instead, the Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo dated 05.11.2024 with a prayer to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court took the memo on record and, based on the petitioner's request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No finding was made on the entitlement to the refund or the reasons for the withdrawal. Therefore, no principle can be extracted for citation, and no operative directions were issued regarding the refund itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Tyco Electronics Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition sought a direction to the respondents, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and other income tax authorities, to refund an amount of Rs. 44,54,74,870/-. This refund was claimed to be due for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing. The petitioner's counsel subsequently filed a memo dated 05.11.2024, requesting the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn. The memo was taken on record by the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the refund of Rs. 44,54,74,870/- for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to compel the income tax authorities to refund the specified amount, implying a claim that the refund was legitimately due and had not been processed. The petitioner relied on its right to receive the refund for the stated assessment years. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions or arguments made by the revenue authorities in response to the writ petition. The revenue was represented by counsel, but their arguments are not detailed in the order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:44421 WP No. 3480 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3480 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.) CAMPUS 2A, 1ST FLOOR, RMZ NXT, SONNENAHALLI, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 066. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. VISHWANATH S., (IN CORPORATION REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.SURYANARAYANA SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-560 095.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) (1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-560 095.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-560 500.

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:44421 WP No. 3480 of 2023

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (SYSTEMS), ARA CENTRE GROUND FLOOR, E-2, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110 055. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH REFUND AN AMOUNT OF RS.44,54,74,870/- DUE TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2011-12 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 05.11.2024 with a prayer to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn.

The memo is taken on record. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →