M/s. Optum Global Solutions India Private Limited V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/7005/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Optum Global Solutions India Private Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, seeking a mandamus for the issuance of a tax refund. The refund was due as per an assessment order dated 29.03.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15, amounting to INR 85,73,080. The petitioner argued that despite providing necessary bank details and revalidations, the refund was delayed due to technical glitches on the part of the respondents. The court found that the delay of over two years and eight months, despite the assessment order being nearly five years old, was unreasonable and directed the immediate issuance of the refund.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753535 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD; GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MAMILLA ASHWIN REDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax Refund; Technical glitch; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7005 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Optum Global Solutions lndia Private Limited, Having its registered office at. 5th, 6th and 7th floor, Office Level Building No. 14, Sundew Properties, SEZ (Mindspace), Hi-Tech City, lvladhapur, Hyderabad 500081, Telangana. Represented by its Authorrzed Representative, Mr. Anuj Jain S/o Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Occ. Director, aged about 42 years, Rt/o Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 5(1), B-Block, 2nd Floor, I T Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,500004 2. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Departnrent of Revenue, Rep., by its Secretary (Revenue) North Block - New Delhi - 1 10001 .RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF mandamus, or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to issue the refund determined to vide the Assessment Order dated 29.O3.2019 to the Petitioner, i.e., INR 85,73,080/- along with applicable interest till the date of issue of refund and Award the costs of this Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAMILLA ASHWIN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI J.V.PRASAD, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TT'KARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. TOOS of 2024 ORI)ER: pe. ao n'ble Srt Justice P.SAM KOSHE) Heard Mr.M.Ashwin Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for respondent No.l and Mr.Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the entire record. 2. The present is a Writ Petition which has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents for refund of the amount determined in the order dated 29 .03.20 19 for the assessment year 2014-15. 3. On the previous date of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department had directed to seek instructions. Today, the learned Standing Counsel has produced a note of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-V (l), Hyderabad. A perusal of the said note, what is apparently evident that there is no dispute so far as the entitlement of the petitioner for the refund of money in terms of the assessment order, dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) for the year 2Ol4-lS is concerned. Initially, there appears to have occurred some technical glitch on the part of the respondents in releasing the amount. 2 Subsequently, the Department has made certain correspondence with the petitioner, calling for re-validation of the bank account pa-rticulars so as to match with the details indicated by the CpC, Bangalore. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given the information to the Department on various occasions, and as per the last request also, they have given the complete details on O9.O7 .2021 i.e. , almost two years eight months back. In spite of the same, the respondents have not been able to make the refund which lead to hling of the instant writ Petition. 5. In terms of the note submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, what is apparently evident is that the authorities are not denying the entitlement of the petitioner for refund, but only found it diffrcult to do it because of certain technical reasons. 6. In our considered opinion, two years eight months itself is a pretty long time, in spite of the petitioner having revalidated his Bank account particulars with the respondent authorities for clearing of the refund. One cannot forget the fact that the order of assessment is one which has been passed on 29.03.2019 i.e., almost five years have lapsed. The period of hve years still is a very long for an assessee to have his claim of refund. 3 7. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the Department that because of technicalities, the authorities could not make refund for a period of five years. We are sure the Income Tax Department is not so technically weak and poor that they are unable to cope up with such situation for a duration of hve years, and at least the period of two years and eight months from the last correspondence made between the petitioner and the Department. Therefore, we are of the firm view that no amount of technical glitches should come in the way now for the respondents to ensure the refund being made to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 29.03.2019 which till date has nor been disputed by the respondent Department. 8. Hence, the respondents are directed to ensure that the entire refund amount which the petitioner is entitled to be refunded, including the statutory interest that would accrue on the said amount, within an outer limit of four weeks from today, failing which, the entire amount shall carry interest @)l2o/o per annum in addition to the statutory interest and the amount of interest that accrues shall be recovered from the concerned offrcials of the Income Tax Department who have failed in discharging their responsibilities in clearing the refund promptly. t t 4 //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. TIRUMALA DE ASSISTANT REGISTR SECTION OF ER 9. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. To 1 2 . Deputy Commissioner of tngome Tax, Circle 5(1), B_Btock, 2nd Floor, I T Tower, AC Guards, Masao.Tin'( Hil*;;;, i;;;;'rr\", 500004 . The Secretary (Revenue ), union'oi i ;J,a;,'ilIiiril)'#iin, nce Department of Revenue, North Block _ New Delhi _ f f OfiOr -\", \"' ' . one CC to SRt MAMTLLA [S{/yiN EEbdi Advocate topuc] . one CC ro SRlJ.V.pRAsao, Serrrioiisc'ioRiN66ME rAX topucl . Two CD Copies J 4 5 PSK CJP I I I { I I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312024 ORDER WP.No.7005 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. @Gyiu ) 14: n1 t4 1o nl,y z s E H 1 R o e Q J o o -L ? C + Dsr .n P4TcH'f QeF- + "