Qualcomm Technologies, Inc vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle International Tax

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle International Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2146 of 2022 & C.M. No. 6164 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 2153 of 2022 & C.M. No. 6174 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2022

Important Points

Tax authorities are required to process refunds promptly as per binding orders from appellate authorities, emphasizing the significance of timely compliance with tax regulations.

Subject

Tax Law - Income Tax

Headnote

(A) Article 265 of the Constitution - Direction to tax authorities regarding processing of returns and issuance of refunds - Petitioner claimed denial of legitimate refunds despite favorable ITAT orders - Court directed Assessing Officer to issue correct computations and pay refunds with up-to-date interest within six weeks. (Paras 2, 6)

(B) Refunds - Tax authorities must comply with binding orders from appellate authorities in a timely manner. (Para 3)

Table of Content
1. writ petitions seek order for tax refunds. (Para 2)
2. counsel argues for refunds based on past verdicts. (Para 3 , 4)
3. respondents agree to issue appeal effect orders. (Para 5)
4. court orders refunds within six weeks. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (ORAL)--The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to process the returns of income, issue correct computations as well as issue refunds along with up to date interest for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that even after completion of the entire proceedings and despite specific, binding and favorable orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (`ITAT') for the years under consideration, the Petitioner is being denied legitimate refunds without any legal basis. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Article 265 of the Constitution, decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, [1997] 5 SCC 536 and decision of this Court in Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, W.P.(C) 10373/2019.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner addressed multiple letters requesting the Respondents to pass the appeal effect orders and grant the refunds to the petitioner, however the same has not been done till date.

5. Issue notice. Mr.Puneet Rai, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. He states that the appeal effect orders shall be passed shortly.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petitions along with pending applications are disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the appeal effect orders as well as pay refunds, if any, with up-to-date interest to the Petitioner for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 within six weeks.