Case Law Details
Having regard to the facts of the case, it is but evident that the respondents have failed to discharge their legal obligation in not refunding the seized amount immediately or shortly after the completion of the assessment proceedings finally at least. We also do not appreciate the argument of the respondent counsel that unless a direction is issued, the respondents shall not pass any speaking order on the application/representation filed by the petitioner for refund of the amount due to him. This shows that the officers of the Income Tax Department are shirking their responsibilities.
Speedy and affordable justice is the requirement of the day. But it cannot be achieved until the executive including tax-man discharge their duties faithfully honestly within the four corners of law. As seen above, it is clear that the revenue official failed to take any decision right or wrong on the refund application filed by the petitioners and passed on the buck on the Court. Time has come for the heads of the departments to keep a strict vigil on such shirkers and to fix their responsibility. While it is no doubt true that collection of revenue is a serious matter for the State -and the bounden duty of the authorities functioning under the Act is to implement the provisions of the Act, there should be safety and assurance to an honest tax-payer. An honest tax-payer should not be subjected to unnecessary harassment and an action not warranted in law, which can be of very serious consequence to the tax-payer if is allowed to remain without correction, such harassment and browbeating of an honest tax-payer will otherwise drive even such honest tax-payers to become cynical and lead to a situation where taxpayers will get a feeling that paying taxes honestly is not a worthwhile exercise; that the tax authorities are a menace to the society rather than simply being representatives of the State for enforcing the tax provisions.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund in all Rs.25 Lakhs seized from the petitioners on 17th of October, 2006 along with interest at the prevalent rate as provided for under section 132 B(4) for the period 16.12.2007 to 31.12.2008 and simple interest under section 244A on the said amount of Rs.25 Lakhs from 1st of January, 2009 to the date of actual payment at the rate of 18 per cent per annum within a period of two months, failing which they shall also be liable to pay the interest on interest amount @ 6 % per annum, as indicated above.
Allahabad High Court)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
A correction-
In the 7th line from top, to be read:
“…acting in utter disregard or violation of, or failing to act…
Should the ongoing battle (turned war!) of wits be perceived insightfully and analysed incisively, it will be realised that the instant court case, so also several related others recently reported/narrated (one of them being – “HC issued guidelines to end TDS credit & refund adjustment harassment of Assessee by CPU”) go to succinctly bear out a basic fallacy; in that,by any logic or sound reasoning,to project it as case (s) of ‘harassment’ is too mild a description to qualify as a fitting reprimand or reproach in the eyes of even common law and in the context of principles of mnatural justice. For,thse are clearly instances, where a ‘public servant’, actng or failing to act strictly according to the dictats (mandates) of the law, so also the repeated judicial pronouncements, departmental directives and binding instructions,so on.To be precise,if strictly viewed, it is, indisputably, tantamount to disobedoience or insubordination of the gravest kind, by any standard unexpected of a ‘public servant’; so grave that he cannot be regarded to qualify and avail of the otherwise possible defence namely,-as anything done ‘in good faith’ or ‘intended to be done under this Act’, -as envisaged by the law (in particular, in section 293 of the Act). If that be the rght, nay righteous, premise, then all the lawful consequences must follow.
Key Note: Deliberately left open to be commented/elaborated, after a devoted study and intellligent deliberation, by right minded experts at large; also to sincerely take on, for the common good,the confronting problems with an impartial but multidimentioal approach, have a free and frank discussion with the people in governance, to the end of a lasting solution.
For a few thoughts on the facets hinted at above, one may refer the published article- (2008) 169 Taxmann (journal) 14-21 (para 2.1); which may be of help for having a grass root grip of the whole matter.