Case Law Details
Late Anupam Chandra Ray Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
In a recent judgment by the Madras High Court, the petitioner, Late Anupam Chandra Ray, sought a mandamus to compel the income tax authorities to refund a sum of Rs. 9,04,260. This amount had been quantified in an order issued on 24th November 2021 under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner’s plea was based on the applicable rules, namely the Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020.
Detailed Analysis:
i. Petitioner’s Claim: The petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the income tax authorities (ITO) to refund the sum of Rs. 9,04,260. This amount was determined based on an order issued under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The petitioner relied on both the Act and the relevant rules, the Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020, to support their claim.
ii. Multiple Representations: The petitioner had submitted several representations in pursuit of their claim. Some of these representations were dated 3rd May 2022 and 1st July 2022. These representations were likely aimed at highlighting the petitioner’s case and providing additional evidence or context to support the refund request.
iii. Court’s Directive: The Madras High Court, after hearing the arguments from both the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the respondents (income tax authorities), issued a directive. The court ordered the first respondent (ITO) to consider and pass appropriate orders regarding the petitioner’s representations. This direction was issued in light of the settlement of the petitioner’s dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
iv. Timely Resolution: The court’s directive included a timeline for the resolution of the matter. The ITO was instructed to take action within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the court’s order. This timeframe aims to ensure a timely and efficient resolution of the petitioner’s claim.
Conclusion:
The Madras High Court’s judgment in the case of Late Anupam Chandra Ray vs. ITO highlights the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the relevant rules. The court’s directive to the income tax authorities to consider and process the petitioner’s representations within a specified timeframe emphasizes the significance of timely and fair resolution in tax-related matters. This case serves as a reminder of the legal mechanisms available for individuals and entities seeking relief under tax dispute settlement laws.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. R. S .Balaji, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.9,04,260/- as quantified in effect giving order dated 24.11.2021 passed under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 along with applicable rules i.e., Vivad se Vishwas Rules, 2020.
4. The petitioner has sent several representations, some of the representations are dated 03.05.2022 and 01.07.2022.
5. The first respondent is therefore directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in view of the settlement of dispute of the petitioner vide Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
HC directed ITO to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner in view of the settlement of dispute of the petitioner vide Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Author Bio
