MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 REWARI, HARYANA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/469/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01121914202101 February 2022Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO,MR. JUSTICE HARMINDER SINGH MADAAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the Income-tax Officer (respondent No.1) to take a decision on the petitioner's representations concerning the refund of excess pre-paid taxes along with statutory interest for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2010-2011. This decision was to be made within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order and communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claims themselves, but rather focused on ensuring the timely disposal of the pending representations. The principle established is that authorities must act upon representations made by assessees within a reasonable time, and courts can direct such action when there is undue delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged the inaction of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) in disposing of multiple representations made by the petitioner. These representations, filed between June 30, 2020, and October 12, 2021, sought the refund of excess pre-paid taxes along with statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The refunds were claimed pursuant to assessment orders under Section 143(3) for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2010-2011. The petitioner contended that this prolonged inaction caused serious prejudice. The ITO, through his counsel, agreed to take a decision on these representations within four weeks.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-tax Officer's inaction in disposing of the petitioner's representations for refund of excess pre-paid taxes and statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2010-2011, constitutes a violation of the petitioner's rights, warranting High Court intervention through a writ petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite making numerous representations between June 30, 2020, and October 12, 2021, seeking refunds of excess pre-paid taxes and statutory interest arising from assessment orders under Section 143(3), the respondent (ITO) had failed to dispose of these representations. This inaction had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (ITO), through his counsel, stated that he would take an appropriate decision, as per law, on the said representations within a period of 4 weeks and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

126

CWP No.469 of 2022 Date of decision: 01.02.2022

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Private Limited …. Petitioner

Versus

Income-tax Officer and another

…. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. MADAAN

(Through video conferencing)

Present : Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J. (oral)

Notice of motion. Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Heard counsel for the parties.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had made the following representations seeking refund of excess pre-paid taxes along with statutory interest under Section 244 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising pursuant to assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the said Act for the assessment year 2013-2014 and assessment year 2010-2011.

HEMLATA 2022.02.03 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP No.469 of 2022

-2- Sr. No. AY 2013-14 (Date of Letters filed) AY 2010-11 (Date of Letters filed) 1 30.06.2020 - 2 02.09.2020 02.09.2020 3. 21.09.2020 21.09.2020 4. 30.09.2020 30.09.2020 5. 11.12.2020 11.12.2020 6 23.06.2021 23.06.2021 7 14.07.2021 14.07.2021 8 06.10.2021 06.10.2021 9. 12.10.2021 12.10.2021

It is contended that none of these representations have been disposed of by respondent No.1 and the inaction has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, on instructions, states that respondent No.1 will take an appropriate decision, as per law, on the said representations within a period of 4 weeks and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision on the refund of excess pre-paid taxes along with statutory interest to the petitioner for the said assessment years made pursuant to the said representations made by the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO) JUDGE

February 01, 2022

Hemlata/Jyoti-IV (HARMINDER SINGH MADAAN) JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.

Whether reportable : Yes/No

HEMLATA 2022.02.03 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 244A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →