Hyosung Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 30 Jul 2020 · 2020:DHC:2427-DB
Manmohan; Sanjeev Narula
W.P. (C) 4737/2020
2020:DHC:2427-DB W.P.(C) No.4737/2020
tax petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the income tax authority to comply with the CIT(A) order and release the refund with interest within six weeks, enforcing statutory obligations under the Income Tax Act.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P. (C) 4737/2020
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P. (C) 4737/2020
HYOSUNG CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney with Mr.Vipin Upadhyay, Mr.Arun Bhadauria and
Mr.Prashant Meharchandani, Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Prakash with Mr.Farman Ali, Mr.Aman Malik and Mohammad
Shahan Ulla, Advocates for UOI.
Mr.Deepak Anand, Sr.Standing Counsel for Income Tax Deptt. with
Mr.Vipul Agarwal.
Date of Decision: 30th July, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
C.M.No.17066/2020 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
2020:DHC:2427-DB W.P.(C) No.4737/2020

1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to give appeal effect to the CIT(A) order dated 17th September, 2018 and allow the consequential refund due to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 92,14,180/- along with remaining interest from December 2018 till the release of refund in accordance with Section 244A and/or any other provision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 has failed in its statutory duty by not giving effect to CIT(A) order dated 17th September, 2018 even after statutory period of limitation of three months provided under Section 153 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had expired.

4. He submits that the inaction of the respondent no. 2 is contrary to and in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1914/1993 dated 2nd February, 1993.

5. He further states that pursuant to petitioner’s spin off and transfer of contracts, no operations are left with it and pending refund is the only reason because of which petitioner’s office has not been closed.

6. Issue notice.

7. Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

8. Keeping in view the limited prayer sought in the present writ petition, this Court disposes of the same by directing the respondent No.2 to give appeal effect to the CIT(A) order dated 17th September, 2018 within six weeks by way of a reasoned order and to make payment of refund, if any, in accordance with law. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 30, 2020 KA