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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440162

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent
WP 28333/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 28333 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

HAVING OFFICE AT, BIOCON PARK, SEZ,

BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

PHASE-IV, BOMMASANDRA

BANGALORE - 560 099.

REPRESENTED BY HEREIN BY ITS

ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT

FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS

MR. MANOJ GUPTA

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by

AND:

AASEEFA PARVEEN

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

KARNATAKA

CIRCLE-6(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE - 560 095.

2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX-1, BMTC BUILDING

6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD

KORAMANGALA,

BANGALORE - 560 095.

3. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE

ASSITANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC POST BAG NO.1, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU - 560 500.

4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (SYSTEMS)

ARA CENTER, GROUDN FLOOR, E-2, JHANDEWALAN EXTESNION, NEW DELHI - 110055.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH REFUND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 17,78,24,964/- DETERMINED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.07.2023 BEARING DIN NO.ITBA/AST/M/143(3)/2023-24/1054710203(1) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (ANNEXURE- A), ALONG WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST UNTIL PAYMENT OF THE REFUND AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

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

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the refund request made by the petitioner for the assessment years granted/sanction refund in favour of the petitioner for the assessment year 2010- 2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Subsequently, insofar as assessment years 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 are concerned, the respondents who passed assessment orders against the petitioner raising demands which were challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority by depositing 20% of the disputed tax pursuant to the assessment order.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner had deposited 20% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal is pending adjudication as on today, the respondents have proceeded to adjust the refund payable in favour of the petitioner without taking into account the 20% deposit already made by the petitioner and declined to grant refund in favour of the petitioner who is before this Court by way of the present petition. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in M/S. Price Waterhouse, Bangalore vs. National Faceless appeal centre, Delhi and others in W.P.No.23784/2024

4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that subsequent to sanctioning/granting refund in favour of the petitioner for the assessment years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, the petitioner has also deposited 20% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing an appeal which are pending before the appellate authority. For the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2016- 2017, under identical circumstances in M/s.Price Waterhouse, Bangalore case supra, this Court held as under:

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

“(i) Directing the 3rd 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 1st / 2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before it for the assessment year 2012-13 in App

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