PSL Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT TDS, Delhi & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 16 Aug 2021 · 2021:DHC:2489-DB
Manmohan; Navin Chawla
W.P.(C) 6025/2021
2021:DHC:2489-DB
tax petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed tax authorities to adjust the tax demand under the DTVSV Act against the penalty amount already deposited by the petitioner and refund the balance within a stipulated time.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 6025/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6025/2021 & CM APPL. 19055-19056/2021
PSL INFRATECH PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, Advocate.
VERSUS
CIT TDS, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.
Date of Decision: 16th August, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.: (Oral)

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to adjust the tax due amounting to Rs.4,21,000/- under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act] with the amount of Rs.11,36,800/- that has already been deposited by the Petitioner on account of the Penalty Order dated 04th

3. On 15 January, 2021 and to refund the excess amount in a time bound manner. th July, 2021, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that petitioner was suffering financial losses due to the inaction of the respondents. He had stated that respondent no. 1 [CIT (TDS) Delhi] had 2021:DHC:2489-DB asked the petitioner to approach respondent no. 2 [Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore] for adjusting the tax due under the DTVSV Scheme with the amount deposited by it on account of the penalty order dated 04th January, 2018. He further stated that the last date of depositing the tax was 30th

4. Today, Mr. Kunal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents states that penalty amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be adjusted against the tax due under DTVSV Act, as the same has been adjusted against a legal and valid demand. He further states that present case is not a case for refund. He clarifies that after making a payment of Rs.4,21,000/- under DTVSV Act, the petitioner would be entitled for the refund of Rs.11,36,800/-. September, 2021 and the petitioner could not be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents.

5. In the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.11,36,800/- after making payment of Rs.4,21,000/-, it is not understood as to why the respondents cannot itself adjust the amount of Rs.4,21,000/against the amount of Rs.11,36,800/- already deposited by the petitioner on account of the Penalty Order dated 04th

6. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to adjust the tax demand amounting to Rs.4,21,000/under DTVSV Act with the amount of Rs.11,36,800/- already deposited by the petitioner on account of the Penalty Order dated 04 January, 2018. th January, 2018 on or before 31st

7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with pending applications stands disposed of. August, 2021 and refund the balance amount within a further period of four weeks.

8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 16, 2021 AS