Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Suresh Gulati - Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13641 of 2021
Decided On : 03-12-2021
Important Points
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Headnote
(B) Judicial Authority - There is an obligation on authorities to decide representations made by citizens in a timely manner. (Paras 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought directions for the payment of interest on a seized amount as per statutory provisions, highlighting the non-decision on multiple representations regarding interest claims since 2017.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the respondents to decide the representations relating to interest payment within six weeks, without opining on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authorities were obliged to pay interest on the seized amount due to the non-timely decision on previous applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation under Section 132B(4)(a) to pay interest after a defined period and noted the importance of timely action by authorities on representations made by the petitioner.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeking interest payment. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel argues for interest based on statutory provisions. (Para 2) |
| 3. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner as per Section 132B(4)(a) read with Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act').
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that non-payment of interest on the seized amount is against the provisions of Section 132B(4)(a) of the Act by virtue of which the respondents are under an obligation to pay interest on the amount seized. He states that the said interest is payable after expiry of 120 days from the date when last authorization for search was accorded. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chironjilal Sharma HUF vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.10601/2013 dated 26th November, 2013.
3. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner's representations/applications dated 03rd October, 2017, 16th July, 2019, 03rd February, 2020, 12th October, 2020 and 20th July, 2021 for payment of interest have not been decided till date.
4. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's aforesaid representations/applications within six weeks in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
