Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited Vs ACIT Central Circle 2 & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that adjustment of refund against outstanding demand not justified on account of an order interdicting coercive action for recovery of dues. Accordingly, petition is allowed and refund amount is directed to be paid.
Facts- The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the rectified intimation dated 07.07.2022 [the impugned intimation] passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, essentially, impugns the action of the Revenue in adjusting the refund of ₹19,37,43,880/- payable to the petitioner for assessment year [AY] 2020-21 against the outstanding demands in respect of AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. The petitioner also claims that the amounts adjusted be refunded along with interest as applicable.
Conclusion- In Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Division Bench has clearly held that an appellate authority may order stay of recovery in absolute terms. However, it could also direct stay of recovery by coercive methods, but not interdict adjustment of refund against outstanding demands.
Held that we allow the present petition and set aside the action of the Revenue and adjust the refunds due to the petitioner for assessment year 2020-21 against the outstanding demands for the AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 and direct that the amount of refund determined, be paid to the petitioner along with the applicable interest as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date.
