The court directed the rectification of tax records under its supervisory jurisdiction, based on clear evidence that a significant tax payment was misattributed to the wrong assessment year.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Via this writ petition, the substantive prayers made by the petitioner are hereunder:

"a. Writ of Mandamus or Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No.1 to rectify Form-3 dated 29.01.2021 by allowing credit of tax payment of Rs.19,05,21,564/-;

b. Ad-interim direction extending the due date of deposit of the tax under the VsV Scheme, i.e., 30.04.2021, to a date falling after the date of issuance of rectified Form-3;"

2. The writ petition came up for hearing for the first time on 27.04.2021, when we had, inter alia, recorded the following:

"2. The principal grievance of the petitioner-assessee appears to be the reluctance of respondent no.1 to rectify Form-3 dated 29.01.2021 filed under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [hereafter referred to as "the 2020 Act"].

3. The petitioner-assessee seeks rectification of the said form, limited to the extent of giving credit for the tax paid qua the assessment year ("AY") 2003-2004. The petitioner-assessee claims that in the said AY, it had paid the tax amounting to Rs.19,05,21,564/-.

4. The revenue, based on the input received at the relevant time, has taken the position that credit cannot be given for the tax paid as it relates to AY 2007-2008, which is not the relevant A.Y.

5. Mr. Sachit Jolly, who appears on behalf of the petitioner-assessee, says that respondent no.4 [i.e., HDFC bank], the remitter, has clarified that the petitioner-assessee had, in fact, paid tax for the relevant A.Y. [i.e. AY 2003-2004] and because of the digitalization process being undertaken by it, the mistake had occurred, resulting in the amount paid towards tax, being reflected, albeit erroneously, vis-a-vis AY 2007-2008.

6. In our view, this matter can be resolved if the revenue were to take proactive measures and ascertain the correct position directly from respondent no.4/HDFC Bank.

7. Issue notice to the respondents.

8. Mr. Puneet Rai, who appears on advance notice, accepts service on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/revenue.

8.1. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to respondent no.4/HDFC bank via all permissible modes including e-mail.

9. Mr. Rai says that he will revert with instructions. In case, instructions are received to resist the petition, a counter-affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.

10. List the matter on 21.05.2021."

2.1. The matter was thereafter, listed, as indicated above, on 21.05.2021, when Mr. Puneet Rai, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3/revenue, informed us that a communication had been sent to respondent no. 4/HDFC Bank with regard to the matter in issue.

2.2. As noted by us, in the orders dated 27.04.2021 and 21.05.2021, the petitioner was not being granted credit for tax paid, amounting to Rs.19,05,21,564/-, as respondent no.4/HDFC Bank had wrongly indicated that the said amount had been paid qua assessment year (`AY') 2007-08 as against AY 2003-04.

2.3. It is in these circumstances that, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 27.05.2021, respondent no.4/HDFC Bank was directed to file an affidavit in terms of the earlier order dated 21.05.2021. The record shows that, although, respondent no.4/HDFC Bank has filed an affidavit, the same has been returned under objections by the Registry.

2.4. It is, however, not disputed by Mr. Rai, counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3/revenue and Mr. Sachit Jolly, counsel for the petitioner, that they have received a copy of the said affida