M PAPANNA vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
What did the High Court hold?
The Court directed the respondent to take immediate steps to refund any excess tax collected for the assessment year 2008-09. The grievance regarding other assessment years was no longer surviving.
What were the facts?
The petitioner sought a refund of excess tax deducted at source. The tax for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 had already been refunded. For assessment year 2008-09, the respondent indicated steps were initiated for refund.
What were the issues?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess tax deducted at source and the timeliness of such refunds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.12372/2012 & W.P.No.12830-31 /2012 (T-IT ) BETWEEN: Sri M.Papanna, Aged about 59 years, S/o late Munishamappa Senior Judgment Writer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. … PETITIONER (By Sri H.C.Shivaramu, Adv.) AND: 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. 2. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-13 (4), HMT Bhavan, Gangenahalli, Bellary Road, Bangalore. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri T.K.Vedamurthy, HCGP for R1, Sri M.V.Seshachala, Adv. for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent No.2 to refund excess tax deducted at source on the basis of the voucher details with interest and etc.
2 This petition coming on for preliminary hearing-B group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shivaram submits that in so far as the relief sought regarding refund of tax deducted in excess at source for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 is concerned, the same has been refunded by respondent No.2 and therefore the grievance made in this regard does not survive for consideration. 3. He further points out that as regards the excess amount of tax collected for the assessment year 2008-09, it has been informed by respondent No.2 that steps have been initiated to refund the amount and therefore this writ petition may be disposed of recording the steps initiated in this regard with a direction to respondent No.2 to expeditiously refund the excess tax collected for the year 2008-09. These submissions are not refunded by the respondent who are represented by Sri Sheshachala and the Government Pleader. 4. In the light of the above submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take
3 immediate steps to refund the excess amount, if any, collected towards tax for the assessment year 2008-09. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within 3 weeks. Sd/- JUDGE KK
More judgments on Section 227
- Sinder Pal S/O Late Sh. Ram Sarup vs Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container…W.P.(C)-3002/202116 Sept 2026
- Sri Tontadarya B S vs The Superintendent of PoliceWP/4538/202212 Dec 2022
- Erappa vs The Deputy CommissionerWP/9257/201416 Nov 2022
- Pralaksha Charitable Trust vs State of KarnatakaWP/16109/202212 Sept 2022
- Smt Promoda Devi Wadiyar vs Bangalore Development AuthorityWP/2170/20156 Jul 2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026