RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J:

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent to process the refund of Rs.22,73,833/- along with updated interest under Section 243, which has been wrongly recorded as 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), until the date of payment.

2. The petitioner is a practising Chartered Accountant. According to the petitioner, he maintains his books of accounts on a cash basis and accordingly, filed his Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2018-19 in Form ITR-3 on 14th August, 2018. The declared net income of the petitioner was Rs.37,09,520/- on which the payable tax was Rs.9,53,117/-. As would appear from the records, TDS to the tune of Rs.39,51,350/- was deducted, making the petitioner eligible to a refund of Rs.29,98,230/-. Subsequently, the petitioner received an intimation under Section 143(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 on 7th January, 2020 that the net amount payable was Rs.9,75,430/- while the TDS allowed was Rs.1,68,300/-. Still later the petitioner received an order under Section 154 of the said Act dated 16th January, 2024. The order reflected a refund of Rs.55,54,357/- out of which Rs.22,73,833/- was shown to be withheld under Section 245 of the said Act. Having regard to the withholding amount of Rs.22,73,833/-, the petitioner had written a letter to the Income Tax Department regarding the shortfall in refunding the amount of Rs.37,28,198/-. The petitioner would contend that despite the refund of Rs.32,80,524/-being sanctioned by the Department by order dated 16th January, 2024, the petitioner received only Rs.18,26,159/- on 18th March, 2024. As would appear from the above, Rs.14,65,365/- was withheld without any explanation. Consequently, by communication in writing dated 20th March, 2024, the petitioner had requested the respondent to release both the aforesaid amount of Rs.22,73,833/- which had been withheld under Section 245 of the said Act, and the wrongly adjusted amount of Rs.14,65,365/-. In fact, the petitioner had subsequently filed a rectification petition under Section 154 of the said Act on 2nd August 2024 seeking refund of Rs.37,28,184/- and had accordingly requested the Department to provide the details in relation to withholding of the amount under Section 245 of the said Act. Despite running from pillar to post and despite making a representation on e-nivaran dated 4th October 2024, since the petitioner did not succeed in getting refund, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition which was registered as WPA No.6316 of 2025. The said writ petition was, however, subsequently withdrawn on the assurance of the respondent that the issue would be resolved. The petitioner received the refund of Rs.14,99,725/- on 5th May 2025 and accordingly, having regard to the assurance given by the respondent, the writ petition was withdrawn. However, since nothing fructified, the petitioner had written a letter on 13th May, 2025 not only calling for an explanation from the respondent but also seeking for the details of the figures which could have authorised the respondent to withhold the amount by invoking the power under Section 245 of the said Act. Since no steps were taken thereafter, the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. At the very outset, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, has raised the point of maintainability and has contended that since the petitioner had previously withdrawn the writ petition, the instant writ petition should not be entertained. Mr. Bhattacharjee has submitted that by withdrawal of the writ petition, the petitioner has in fact abandoned his claim. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior & Ors., reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5.

4. Responding to the above, Mr. Shraf