M/S TAPI PRESTRESSED PRO LTD V. COMMI OF INCOME TAX and ANR

WRW/91/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around a review petition filed by the Executive Engineer, RUSDIP, against an order that required them to refund an amount of Rs. 24,01,949 along with interest to M/s. Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd. The original writ petition was allowed based on the grounds that the amount was wrongly credited to the TDS account by the Bharatpur Treasury, a functionary of the State Government. The review petitioner argued that they were not responsible for the error made by the Treasury Department and sought a re-hearing on these grounds. However, the court found that all arguments had been previously considered and that there was no error in the original judgment warranting a review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 760232 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT LUBHAYA
• Keywords: Income Tax Department; Refund; Review petition; Writ petition; TDS account; Treasury Department

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Review Petition No. 91/2017 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11803/2016 1. M/s. Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd. Through authorised representative G.P. Sharma Son of Shri Chhote Lal Sharma, Aged 55 years, Technical Project Manager, 45, Mission Compound, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Writ Petitioners/Review Respondents 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (T.D.S.), Room No. 312, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The State of Rajasthan, through Finance Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. ----Writ Respondents/Review Respondents Versus The Executive Engineer, RUSDIP,, 859, Jawahar Nagar, Ghana Road, Bharatpur ----Writ Respondent/Review Petitioner _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Lubhaya. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Order 02/05/2017 This review petition has been filed by the Executive Engineer, RUSDIP, Jawahar Nagar, Ghana Road, Bharatpur, which was Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition seeking review of order dated 08.02.2017 whereby writ petition fled by M/s. Tap Prestressed Products Ltd. was allowed, directing review petitioner to pay to the petitioner amount of Rs. 24,01,949/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of three months by leaving open to the review petitioner to claim refund of the same as per prescribed procedure form the Income Tax Department. (2 of 4) [WRW-91/2017] Mr. Amit Lubhaya, learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that though the writ petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount, which was deposited with them as security, but this amount was wrongly credited in TDS account by Bharatpur Treasury, which is a functionary of Respondent No. 3, State Government. Review petitioner made all efforts to obtain refund of the said amount from the Income Tax Department but could not succeed. Then, the review petitioner contacted its Chartered Accountant to submit Form No. 26B of the TRACES website. Chartered Accountant attempted to submit the said form on the TRACES website, but the website did not allow the said request for refund, by indicating that “PAN of Deductor Mismatch”. Thereafter, a reply was received by review petitioner that refund request for BIN (Book Entry) cannot be made on the TRACES website and the same can be made only for entries deposited through a Challan. The Respondent No. 2 did not even reply to the letter dated 14.07.2016 sent to them by the review petitioner seeking clear instruction for refund of the said amount. It is argued that on 25.05.2011, a FVC Bill No. 13 amounting to a total of Rs. 51,51,000/- was deposited with the Treasury, Bharatpur. The Treasury thereupon issued Voucher No. 11 dated 01.06.2011 in which subject deduction was made. Thus, due to some mistake/error, the Treasury Department wrongfully made book transfer entries of all the aforementioned amounts under the head of (TDS) Income Tax including the amount of Rs. 24,01,949/-. It is argued that the review petitioner cannot be held responsible for the lapse on the part of the Treasury Department. (3 of 4) [WRW-91/2017] In fact, the review petitioner came to know about that error only in 2013 when the refund bill was submitted with the Treasury, Bharatpur. Thereafter, the review petitioner had made constant efforts to get the said amount refunded to Respondent No. 1. Review petitioner vide office order dated 12.06.2013 immediately refunded the remaining amount of Respondent No.1 amounting to Rs. 37,09,282/- which shows bonafides on its part and thereafter, it has written several letters to the Income Tax Department and the State Government for rectification of mistake. Letter was also addressed on 04.10.2013 from the office of the Principal Accountant General, Jaipur to the respondents seeking clarification and information on certain documents to proceed in the matter, who vide letter dated 27.11.2014 addressed to Regional Accountant, Income Tax Department(TDS) requested that a cheque/demand draft for the amount wrongly deducted may be issued urgently so that the rectification of entries may be done. It is contended that counsel for the review petitioner could not appear before the Court when the writ petition was decided on 08.02.2017 due to his personal reasons. It is, therefore, prayed that aforesaid order may be recalled and matter be re-heared on merits. This Court decided writ petition filed by petitioner M/s. Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd. on consideration of all the arguments, which the review petitioner has sought to again agitate in the present review petition. Despite absence of counsel for the review petitioner, all arguments were taken note of with reference to the pleadings of the reply filed by the review (4 of 4) [WRW-91/2017] petitioner. It may be true that Treasury wrongly deducted amount of TDS, but that is the matter between the review petitioner and the Treasury Department of the State Government. This Court has merely directed that the amount, which was otherwise to be paid to the petitioner, was wrongly deducted and said deduction was erroneously made by the review petitioner and writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer for that reason. While, therefore, directing refund of the said amount, it has been left open to the review petitioner to claim refund of the same as per prescribed procedure from the Income Tax Department. The review petitioner can avail its remedy with the Income Tax Department under the relevant provisions of law. The present review petition is nothing but an attempt to re-argue the entire matter on merits all over again. Scope of review is well defined that review petition seeking review of any judgment/order can be maintained only if there is error apparent on the face of the record. There is no error apparent on the face of the record of the present case so as to call for any review. In view of above, review petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. Manoj "