The Patna High Court has dismissed the plea of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank for seeking the TDS Refund since the matter is pending scrutiny before Competent Officer.
The petitioner has sought the refund of TDS already paid by him to the revenue department to the tune of 54crore. For this bank filed a petition against Principal Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and contended that refund for the year 2016-17 is not being granted this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the refund of the TDS deposited.
Thereafter Petitioner sought the help of judgment in the case of Group M. Media India (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors wherein Bombay High Court held that a mandamus is issued for the refund of the TDS deposited.
On the counterpart respondent raised an objection by stating that said return has been taken for scrutiny and the matter being pending consideration under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and the petitioner required to comply with various formalities including furnishing all information under the scrutiny assessment for the year in question and, therefore, at this stage indulgence cannot be made to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court when the matter is pending before the authorities.
Mr Ajay Kumar Rastogi appeared at the behest of petitioner denied the argument of Revenue and again pressed the aforementioned judgment of Bombay High Court.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad while perusing the records and petition observed that since the matter is pending before the competent officer at this stage exercising the discretion under Section 143(1d) of the Income Tax Act, no mandamus can be issued.
Court ordered the department to complete the scrutiny and thereafter, proceed to consider the question of refund in accordance with law.
Also, the bench observed that “As and when the refund shall be ordered interest on the same shall be paid in accordance with the law so that there may not be any monetary loss to the petitioner”.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
