MR. SHYAMRAJ SINGH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

PDF · subscribers
WP/19955/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01040167202125 November 2021Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. This was to be done within two months, taking into account previous court decisions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to give effect to a previous court order and refund excess tax collected. The petitioner's representation regarding these grievances had not been considered by the respondents.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-consideration of the petitioner's representation by the income tax authorities regarding the refund of excess tax collected, despite a prior court order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19955 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MR. SHYAMRAJ SINGH S/O B.S BALAJI SINGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PRESENTLY AT EMBASSY HABITAT, NO.1002, NEXT TO MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 052. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GAUTAM S BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN NO.1 QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 BELLARY – 583 102. 3) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN NO.1 FORT ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 1, "AAYAKAR BHAVAN" STAFF ROAD , FORT BELLARI – 583 102. 5) THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (CENTRAL) 4TH FLOOR CENTRAL AVENUE, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

2 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THAT RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.36004/2018 AND REFUND THE EXCESS TAX COLLECTED IN THE RETURNS (INVALID) FILED ON 30.08.2010 AT ANNEXURE–B, AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2010.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: "A. To issue a writ of mandamus directing that Respondent Authorities to give effect to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.36004 of 2018 and refund the excess tax collected in the returns (invalid) filed on 30.08.2010 (Annexure-B) and the Assessment Order dated 31.12.2010. B. In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer A, direct the Respondents to consider the representation made by the Petitioner dated 25.06.2019 produced as Annexure-'E', in a time bound manner. C. Grant such other reliefs to meet the ends of justice and equity."

2.

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

3.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner's representation at Annexures-E dated 25.06.2019 has not been considered by the respondents and no order has been passed so far and having regard to the fact that the grievances of the petitioner as ventilated in the representation has not been considered by the respondents while passing the order at Annexure-F dated 25.01.2021, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondents to address the grievances of the petitioner as ventilated in the representation dated 25.06.2019 vide Annexure-E and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the earlier round of litigation in the case of Mr. Shyamraj Singh Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.36004/2018 C/W 36005/2010 DD: 24.01.2019) produced at Annexure-E, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of K. Nagesh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 376 ITR 473 produced at

4 Annexure-G, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from today. SD/- JUDGE Bmc

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →