Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
EKO India Financial Services Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal framework for refund adjustments (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. argument on excess adjustment against demand (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on adherence to cbdt guidelines (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. directing refund within specified timeline (Para 13) |
| 5. closure of the writ petition (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
a) issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order No.1 dated June 11, 2020 issued by CPC adjusting the entire refund for AY 2019-20 against the disputed demand for AY 2017-18; and
b) issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed demand for AY 2017-18; and
c) issuance a writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents No. 1and 2 from further recovery of outstanding tax demand for AY 2017-18 until the disposal of appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) which is pending adjudication under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020; and
d) issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order No.2 dated December 21, 2020;
Tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines for refund adjustments, and deviations require explicit justification.
Point of Law : Taxation - Lieu of payment of refund tax - Government is bound to follow rules and standards they themselves had set on pain of their action being invalidated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing officer must grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, unless specific re....
The government is bound to follow the rules and standards they themselves had set, and the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the app....
The government must adhere to its own regulations regarding tax demand recovery, and any excess recovery without following prescribed procedures is deemed invalid.
The Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, and the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing officer is mandated to grant stay on recovery of the balance disputed outstanding tax demand till disposal of the first appeal o....
The court upheld that tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines on stay of demand, mandating refund of adjustments exceeding 20% of disputed tax during appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing Officer must adhere to the provisions of the Office Memorandums and grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on pa....
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
