ABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/19108/2021

AI Insights

In this writ petition, ABS India Private Limited and its managing director, Shri Sunil Arora, sought a judicial directive to expedite the processing of their income tax refund claim for the assessment year 2009-10. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, targeting the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as respondents. The petitioners argued that their refund claim had not been processed, nor had any orders been issued regarding the claim. The respondents, represented by Sri K.V. Aravind, acknowledged the delay but requested reasonable time to process the claim. The court, after hearing both sides, decided to direct the respondents to process the claim expeditiously within a specified timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691496 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: K S KUMAR; S GANESH
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2009-10; Income Tax; Refund claim; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 153; 240; 244(A)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19108/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. ABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.13, L.R. MANSION, 2ND CROSS KODIHALLI HAL MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 008 (REPRESENTED BY SHRI SUNIL ARORA MANAGING DIRECTOR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE SHRI RAM PRAKASH ARORA). 2. SHRI SUNIL ARORA MANAGING DIRECTOR ABS INDIA PVT. LTD. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE SHRI RAM PRAKASH ARORA NO.13, L.R. MANSION, 2ND CROSS KODIHALLI HAL MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.S. NAVEEN KUMAR & SRI S. GANESH, ADVOCATES ) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT. ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT. ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND R2 TO EXPEDITIOUSLY PROCESS THE REFUND CLAIM AND SANCTION THE REFUND OF RS.3,60,294/- WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244-A R/W. SECTION 153 AND SECTION 240 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents. 2. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Mandamus and direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to expeditiously process the refund claim and sanction the refund of Rs.3,60,294/- with Interest under Section 244A read with section 153 and section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 3 (ii) To pass such other prodders, directions and writs including the cost of this Writ Petition as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri K.S.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for respondents and perused the petition papers. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the grievance of the petitioners that their claim for refund and sanction of the amount claimed by them has not been processed and no orders has been passed by the respondents so far. As such, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is given to the respondents, they would take necessary steps to process the claim of the petitioners in accordance with 4 law. The said submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made at the bar, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to process the claim of the petitioners to refund of the excess amount in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE SN "