Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Relx India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 78(1) Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. refund application and demands concerning tax. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against unjust recovery actions. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on delay in appeal actions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. directive for expedited hearing of appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):
CM No.54468/2022
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) 17135/2022
2. The substantive prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows:
"a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue the refund of Rs.6,95,43,498/- along with up-to-date interest after adjusting 20% of the disputed demand (i.e., Rs. 1,39,08,699/-) as the action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. The record reveals, that the petitioner had filed an application for staying the demand, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 17.12.2021.
3.1. Thereafter, a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] dated 30.09.2022 was served
The court applied the principle that the revenue cannot recover more than 20% of the outstanding tax demand and emphasized the timely disposal of the appeal.
The court has the authority to direct the revenue to remit disputed refund amounts and grant liberty to file a rectification application for differences in refund amounts under the Income Tax Act, 19....
The court ruled on the application of Articles 226 and 227 regarding interim tax relief, emphasizing that disputed tax demands require careful judicial consideration and timely hearings.
The court held that the best course is to remit matters to the Assessing Officer for a speaking order rather than filing for rectification when significant time has passed.
The court reinforced the obligation of the revenue to execute prior orders from tax appellate authorities and to ensure timely refunds as mandated by law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious disposal of appeals and compliance with court directions in matters related to refunds and recovery proceedings.
Interest on refunds is warranted from the date of valid application in cases where the authority does not contest the claim, reinforcing the principle of compensation for delayed access to owed funds....
Tax authorities cannot recover outstanding tax demands during the pendency of a stay order, and the responsibility to update systems upon granting such stays rests with the department, not the assess....
Tax authorities must follow established procedures when collecting disputed amounts, ensuring fairness and adherence to guidelines for stay of demands pending appeal decisions.
The court's decision was based on the plea that the respondents have to give effect to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the concerned Assessment Years.
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
