GMR Airports Ltd. V. Assistant Director of Income-Tax Centralised Processing Center (CPC), Income Tax Department and Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central

WP/773/2022

AI Insights

GMR Airports Ltd. filed a writ petition against the Assistant Director of Income-Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, challenging the adjustment of a tax refund for the assessment year 2019-20 against a disputed tax demand for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner had previously obtained a stay on the 2017-18 demand by depositing 20% of the tax, as per an office memorandum. The court found that the adjustment of the refund was not legally tenable as it pertained to a demand that was under appeal and had been stayed. Consequently, the court set aside the adjustment and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808603 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2022
• 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: SANDEEP HUILGOL; BALRAM RAO
• Keywords: Disputed Demand; Refund adjustment; Stay of demand; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(1); 244A; 226; 245; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.773/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: GMR AIRPORTS LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.25/1, SKIP HOUSE, MUSEUM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI INDANA PRABHAKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PAN: AAACM7791H … PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTER (CPC), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT POST BAG NO.1, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE BANGALORE - 560 500. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION NO.1 DATED 3RD JULY 2020 IN DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-B ADJUSTING THE ENTIRE REFUND FOR AY 2019-20 AGAINST THE DISPUTED DEMAND FOR AY 2017-18 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the intimation dated 09.05.2020 at Annexure-C issued under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the refund along with interest thereon under Section 244A of the Act. 2. Petitioner submits that insofar as the assessment year 2017-18 is concerned, the assessment order is a subject matter of appeal and the petitioner has obtained an order of stay after deposit of 20% of the tax demand. It is submitted that the petitioner has had the benefit of stay by virtue of office memorandum which provides that order of 3 stay is to be granted subject to deposit of 20% of tax demand. The said aspect is not in dispute. 3. Petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for refund in terms of the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act as regards the assessment year 2019-20. However, it is submitted that the respondents - Authority have issued intimation under Section 245 of the Act expressing their intention to adjust the refund as regards the assessment year 2019-20 for the demand as regards the year 2017-18. 4. Accordingly, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the intimation under Section 245 is not legally tenable as the refund adjustment is sought to be made as regards to the demand which is the subject matter of appeal and has been stayed by virtue of the petitioner having deposited 20% of the tax demand. It is submitted that the adjustment as contemplated under Section 245 must be as regards 4 amounts presently payable which is not the case in the present factual matrix. 5. It is borne out from the records that the adjustment has already been resorted to by the Department pursuant to the intimation under Section 245 of the Act. Considering that the petitioner has made out his objections to the notice under Section 245, copies of which are found at Annexure-K Series, it would be appropriate to relegate the matter back to the Authority for reconsideration of the aspect relating to notice under Section 245 and orders to be passed regarding the same after considering the objections of the petitioner referred to above. 6. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in adjusting the refund as regards to the subject matter of intimation at Annexure-C issued under Section 245 of the Act is set aside. The matter is relegated to the respondents to reconsider as regards the intimation under Section 245 after considering the objections of the petitioner at Annexure-K Series. The entire process to be completed 5 within a period not later than six weeks from the date of release of this order. In the event the petitioner is entitled for refund, the same to be made expeditiously. 7. In light of the above, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "