M/S SPENCES HOTELS PVT LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/4561/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01001852201622 March 2016Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Income Tax Officer to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- along with applicable interest to the petitioner. This order is to be passed within 8 weeks from the receipt of the order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner had deposited Rs. 12,50,000/- as a pre-condition for a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court struck down the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, making the deposit refundable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the delay by the revenue authorities in refunding a deposit made by the petitioner, which was rendered refundable after a notice was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION NO.4561 OF 2016 (T-IT)

Between:

M/s. Spences Hotels Pvt. Ltd., No.565/8, 8th Main, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 038. (Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Anand Johar) …Petitioner

(By Shri.K.R. Prasad & Shri. Ashok.A. Kulkarni, Advs.)

And:

1.

Income Tax Officer,

Circle – 6(1) (2),

3rd Floor, BMTC Building,

80 ft. Road, Koramangala,

Bengaluru – 560 034.

2.

Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bengaluru – 6,

3rd Floor, BMTC Building,

80 ft. Road, Koramangala,

Bengaluru – 560 034. …Respondents

(By Shri.K.V. Aravind, Adv.) ---

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or otherwise to the R-1 having jurisdiction over the petitioner at present to refund the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- along with due interest thereon until the date of refund and etc.,

This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court with a limited prayer. Hence the petition is considered at the stage of preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group.

2.

The learned counsel for the respondent is heard. The petitioner is said to have paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- as per the instructions of the Apex Court before which Special Leave Petition was pending for the assessment year as a pre condition during the pendency of the Civil appeal. The petitioner had challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year

1976-77 which had been issued pursuant to an order of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for the assessment year 1980-81. This notice was finally struck down by the Apex Court by its order dated 20.09.2012. In the result, the amount in deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner. Inspite of his best efforts over the years since the year 2012 the respondents have stoically ignored the petitioner’s representations and have not passed any orders either rejecting his claim or granting his claim and hence the petitioner is before this Court.

3.

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the delay in processing the petitioner’s application is on account of pressure of work and it is quite possible that if reasonable time is granted the respondents would address the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount if the same is due to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- with corresponding

interest, as well, on the said amount if the petitioner is entitled to the same in law, pursuant to the Supreme Court having struck down the order which was under challenge and subject to the disposal of the petition. The amount having been deposited the petitioner may be entitled to the same. Therefore, appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- JUDGE

ykl

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →