SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Pavan Gaur - Appellant
Versus
N. Sairaj - Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 258 of 2022 & CM Appl. 11501 of 2022
Decided On : 08-03-2022




Court orders must be strictly followed, and adjustment of tax refunds against non-collectable demands is impermissible.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act - Section 143(1) - Contempt petition filed alleging violation of previous court order regarding tax refund - Tax refund of Rs.1,19,33,291/- adjusted against outstanding demand of Rs.1,16,86,650/- from a previous assessment year in violation of court order - Adjustment of refund deemed inappropriate as demand marked 'non-collectable' - Court orders the refund of the adjusted amount within four weeks. (Paras 2, 6, 7)

(B) Contempt of court proceedings - A finding of contempt requires clear evidence of willful disobedience of a court order, which was not established in this case. (Paras 2, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that a tax refund was wrongfully adjusted against an outstanding demand despite a prior court order barring such actions. Respondents admitted that the demand was marked as 'non-collectable.'

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the adjustment of refund was improper due to the past court order.

Issues: The primary issues addressed included whether the adjustment of tax refund against a 'non-collectable' demand constituted contempt and the authority of the respondent not involved in the original order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that court orders must be adhered to strictly, invalidating the adjustment of funds in light of the status of the outstanding demand.

Result: The court ordered the respondents to refund the adjusted amount to the petitioner within four weeks.

Table of Content
1. contempt petition filed for contempt of prior order on tax refund. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. argument regarding the wrong arraying of parties in the proceeding. (Para 4)
3. analysis of the order regarding recovery of non-collectable tax demand. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's directive on refund despite finding of no contempt. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present contempt petition has been filed alleging contempt of the order dated 27th August, 2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 9283/2019.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that vide intimation order dated 22nd October, 2021, a tax refund amount of Rs.1,19,33,291/- for the assessment year 2020-21 was wrongfully adjusted against the alleged outstanding demand of Rs.1,16,86,650/- relating to the assessment year 2018-19, in violation of this Court's order dated 27th August, 2019 passed in W.P.(C)9283/2019.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner filed a grievance with the Centralized Processing Centre (`CPC') of the Income Tax Department which was summarily closed on 12th November, 2021, by way of a non-speaking order. She states that the Petitioner thereafter applied to Respondent No.3 for rectification of the intimation under Section 143(l) for the Assessment Year 2020-2l, and for issuing the balance income tax refund amount. However, the same was denied to the petitioner vide intimation dated 4th February, 2022.

4. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, accepts notice. He states that respondent No.1 has been wrongly arrayed as a party to the present proceeding, inasmuch as, he is not a party to the initial writ petition. He states that he has not received any instruction from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

5. A perusal of the paperbook reveals that the learned predecessor Division Bench vide order dated 27th August, 2019 has directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for recovery of tax which has already been deducted from the petitioner's salary by the respondent No.4-employer.

6. Even in the communication dated 4th February, 2022, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has admitted that in view of the High Court's order dated 27th August, 2019, the outstanding demand of Rs.1,16,86,650/- has been marked as `non-collectable' in ITBA system.

7. This Court is of the view that once the said demand had been marked as `non-collectable', there is no question of any refund being adjusted against the said demand. Though this Court is further of the view that no contempt is made out, yet this Court in accordance with the earlier order dated 27th August, 2019, directs the respondents to refund the adjusted amount of Rs.1,16,86,650/- to the petitioner within four weeks. Accordingly, the petition and application stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top