Refunds cannot be adjusted against demands exceeding 20% of the disputed amount, ensuring compliance with pre-deposit norms under taxation laws.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

(a) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction therein ordering and directing the Respondents to forthwith grant refund of the amount of Rs. 1,46,080/- determined as refundable to the Petitioner vide intimation order dated 30.09.2022 issued under Section 143 (1) of the IT Act bearing DIN: CPC/2122/A6/250469426 for the AY 2021-22 (Annexure- A) (illegally adjusted with the outstanding demand for the AY 2018-19), along with applicable interest.

(b) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction therein ordering and directing the Respondents to forthwith grant refund of the amount of Rs. 76,90,450/- determined as refundable to the Petitioner vide intimation order dated 09.11.2022 issued under Section 143 (1) of the IT Act bearing DIN: CPC/2223/A6/315506858 for the AY 2022-23 (Annexure-B) (illegally adjusted with the outstanding demand for the AY 2018-19), along with applicable interest.

(c) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction therein directing the Respondents from any subsequent refund adjustment against the outstanding stayed demand for AY 2018-19 raised vide the notice of demand dated 13.09.2021 issued under Section 156 of IT Act bearing DIN & Notice No: ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1035506590(1) (Annexure- F) till the disposal of the appeal by the Respondent No. 4.

(d) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction therein directing the Respondent No. 4 to expedite the disposal of the appeal bearing Income Tax Appeal No. NFAC/2017 - 18/10087939 (Annexure -G) pending before it for AY 2018-19.

(c) Pass any such orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents;

(f) Award litigation costs incurred by the Petitioner in filing this Writ.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Price Waterhouse, Bengaluru Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and Ors passed in W.P.No.23784/2024 dated 25.09.2024 and as such, the present petition also deserves to be allowed in terms of the said decision of this Court.

4. This Court in the case of M/s. Price Waterhouse, (supra) has held as under:

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief's:

“(i) Directing the 3^rd Respondent to forthwith refund Rs.21,08,91,940/-, being demand recovered in excess of 20% of the demand raised for the assessment year 2012-13, along with applicable interest;

(ii) Directing the 1^st / 2^nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before it for the assessment year 2012-13 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bengaluru-1/10224/2015-16 (old appeal No.9/10002/2017-18 (Manual Appeal Register No.:40/BU/2015-16)) (Annexure0B dated 29.04.2015 in a time bound manner, expeditiously;

(iii) Directing the Respondents not to enforce the balance demand raised vide demand notice dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-A2) until disposal of the appeal by the 1^st / 2^nd Respondent and for a period of three weeks thereafter; and

(iv) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.”

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in th