Disposed

N.S.Sathishkumar v. The Income Tax Department

Madras HC21 Jun 2021WP/29201/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a refund of TDS with interest. The Court held that the petitioner had already approached the Respondents via representation, directing the Department to consider it, follow statutory procedures, and afford an opportunity, aiming to dispose of the matter within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, adhere to statutory procedures, allow an opportunity to be heard, and pass orders within 12 weeks.

N.S.Sathishkumar Vs The Income Tax Department — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.29201 of 2018

N.S.Sathishkumar

..Petitioner

1.The Income Tax Department,

¶10

CPC, P.B.No.1,

¶11

Electronic City Post Office, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

¶12

2.The Managing Director, National Insurance Company Ltd., Salem. ..Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to refund the deducted TDS amount of Rs.2,19,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deduction till payment and TDS amount of Rs.37,000/deducted for the year 2017-2018 with accrued interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deduction till payment to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gopalakrishnan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.D.Prabhumukunth Arunkumar Standing counsel (Revenue)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 1^st respondent to refund the deducted TDS amount of Rs.2,19,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deduction till payment and TDS amount of Rs.37,000/deducted for the year 2017-2018 with accrued interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deduction till payment to the petitioner.

¶18

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the refund for which he is entitled has not been made, despite the representation made in this regard to the respondents.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

The learned Standing counsel for the respondent made a submission that for refund of deducted TDS amount, the procedures are contemplated under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The procedures are to be followed for making such refund.

¶21

However, the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.09.2018. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already approached the first respondent for redressal of his grievances through representation, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation and pass orders by following the procedures as contemplated and by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

Kak

¶28

¶29

1.The Income Tax Department, CPC, P.B.No.1, Electronic City Post Office,

¶30

Bengaluru, Karnataka.

¶31

2.The Managing Director, National Insurance Company Ltd., Salem.

¶32

+1cc to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.28694

¶33

+1cc to Mr.R.P.Panneer Selvam, Advocate, S.R.No.28847

¶34

W.P.No.29201 of 2018

¶35

PMK(CO) CB(22/07/2021)

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.S.Sathishkumar v. The Income Tax Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.Sathishkumar v. The Income Tax Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sujana Steels, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S. Lakshmi Mills Vs

M/S.Victory Laminations Ltd. Vs the Customs & Central Excise

M/s.Enfinity Solar Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income TAx

K.Dharmalingam, Vs Principal Commissioner of

M/S.Aban Offshore Ltd, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of