Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Deepak Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Department of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. right to interest under income tax act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. order to proceed with notice. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. no action on refund request. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's direction for decision on representation. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking interest in accordance with section 132B (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent has acted in an arbitrary manner `by sitting on the amount' seized from the Petitioner for over four years after completion of assessment. He states that the Respondent did not pay any interest on the amount seized by the Department even though such interest is provided for in the statute itself, i.e. u/s 132(B)(4) for the period after expiry of one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of last authorization of search and seizure uptill the order of assessment is passed and thereafter at a reasonable rate of interest till realization of such amount.
4. Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Department of Income Tax.
5. A perusal of the paper book reveals
The court enforced the provision for interest payment in accordance with section 132B(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by directing the Respondent to take action on the representation for interest pay....
Statutory provisions require authorities to pay interest on seized amounts post a 120-day period if applications remain undecided, reinforcing timely responses to citizens' representations.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 132B(4)(a) read with Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the payment of interest on the seized amount.
The court emphasized that differing circumstances in tax cases must be individually assessed, particularly regarding claims for interest on delayed refunds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the word 'shall' in the second proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the determination of its mandat....
The court mandates a reasoned order regarding the interest claim under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, emphasizing the duty to provide a fair opportunity for hearing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to interest as calculated by the petitioner and confirmed by the respondent, and is also entitled to interest durin....
The court emphasized the right to claim interest in accordance with the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the need for a reasoned order in such matters.
Timely issuance of income tax refunds and interest is mandated, with the court ensuring compliance with statutory duties by the Revenue authorities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
