Case Law Details
Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd, directing the revenue department to process the company’s pending TDS refund application in a time-bound manner. The petitioner initially sought a refund of ₹6,16,650 with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but later confined the claim to ₹2,89,775, as per a TDS certificate issued by Percept Picture Company Pvt Ltd. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a representation in June 2019, seeking the refund, but the revenue department had not disposed of the request, leading to this litigation. The department filed an affidavit but failed to clarify whether the TDS deductions were made, necessitating further verification.
Considering the circumstances, the Court instructed the revenue authorities to resolve the matter within three months by verifying the deductions and allowing the refund if justified. The petitioner was given two weeks to submit any additional supporting documents. If the department confirms the deductions, it must process the refund within one month. The Court ruled that no interest would be payable if the refund is issued within two months of determination. However, any further delay beyond this period would make the revenue department liable to pay interest as per the law. The Court refrained from making any factual determinations, leaving the contentions open for future proceedings. The petition was disposed of without any cost order, ensuring a fair resolution for both parties.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. By amending the Writ Petition, the petitioner prayed for a refund of Rs. 6,16,650/—along with interest applicable under Section 244A of the Income Tax, 1961. However, at a later stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, based on instructions from the Petitioner, confined the relief to a refund of Rs. 2,89,775/—, as reflected in the TDS certificate on page 16 of the paper book.
4. Accordingly, by our order dated 4 October 2024, we recorded the statement of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and adjourned the matter at the request of Mr Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, to obtain instructions on whether the Petitioner’s claim could be allowed after examining the department documents.
5. The Respondents have now filed an affidavit in this Court. However, the affidavit is not quite clear on the status of the TDS certificate on page 16 of the paper book. The affidavit does not speak about verification of the records, including finding out whether this amount of Rs. 2,89,775/- was indeed deducted by Percept Picture Company Pvt Ltd.
5. The record shows that the Petitioner, through his Advocate, had addressed a representation dated 19 June 2019 seeking a refund of Rs. 2,89,775/- along with interest. Because this representation was not decided, the Petitioner has instituted this Petition.
6. Mr Sharma pointed out that the assessment order in this case was made in 2008, and the representation was filed only on 19 June 2019.
7. Mr Bharat Gandhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions submitted that the Petitioner will not claim any interest on the refund. He, however, submits that since the TDS certificate has been placed on record, the Respondents should at least verify the position regarding deductions and grant a refund to the Petitioner.
8. In the peculiar facts of this case, we think that the Respondent must dispose of the Petitioner’s representation dated 19 June 2019 within three months from today. For this, the Respondents must verify the status of deductions, if any, carried out by Percept Pictures Company Pvt Ltd. If the Petitioner has any further material regarding the deductions, the Petitioner is granted liberty to place the same before the concerned Respondent within two weeks from today. The concerned Respondent must hear the Petitioner, consider the material placed by the Petitioner on record, verify the status of deductions, if any, made by Percept Pictures Company Pvt Ltd and the other material available with the department and dispose of the Petitioner’s representation, dated 19 June 2019.
9. Suppose the concerned Respondent is satisfied that deductions were indeed made as reflected in the TDS certificate on page 16 of the paper book. In that case, this amount should be refunded to the Petitioner within a month from such determination. If the refund is made within two months from such determination, there will be no question of paying interest to the Petitioner, given the Petitioner’s statement recorded by us. However, if there is a delay beyond two months, the Respondents will be liable to pay interest as per the law.
10. At this stage, we clarify that we have not examined the rival contentions because such an examination would involve determining factual issues. Accordingly, all parties’ contentions are left open.
11. This Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any costs order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
Author Bio
