Dismissed

Sub K Impact Solutions Limited v. Sub K Impact Solutions Limited

Telangana HC5 Dec 2023WP/31893/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the delay in issuing a tax refund. STC informed the Court that the principal amount was credited but interest remained pending. The Court noted the submission regarding pending interest proceedings and disposed of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of; the authority shall take steps regarding the claim of interest in accordance with law.

Sub K Impact Solutions Limited Vs Sub K Impact Solutions Limited — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31893 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Sub K lmpact Solutions Limited, 3rd Floor, Surabhi Arcade, Troop Bazar, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad 500001. Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Sasidhar N Thumuluri, S/o. Sri Sastry Seshaiah Thumuluri

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Assistant Director of lncome Tax, Centralized Processing Center, lncome Tax Department, Bengaluru.

¶12

The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-'1 , 7th Floor, l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad 500004, T.S.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 3(1), 7th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur Road, Hyderabad 500084, T.S.

¶14

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1('l ), Signature Towers, Kondapur Road, Hvderabad 500084'TS

¶15

...RES'oNDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the inaction of the lSt Respondent in not issuing eligible refund of Rs.6,24,36,570 along with interest to the Petitioner as^per the order passed u/s.154 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act by the 3rd Respondent for the AY 2020-21 , as being illegal, arbitrary and against the^provisions of the Act, and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith issue refund of Rs.6,24,36,570 along with interest to the Petitioner

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. RAGHU RAM

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V. PRASAD,

¶19

SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

t I

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.31893 of 2023

¶26

Heard Mr.A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶27

Mr.J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶28

Perused the material available on record.

¶29

The present is a writ petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus holding that the inaction of the l" respondent in not issuing etigible refund of Rs.6,24,i6,570/- along with interest to the petitioner as per the order passed u/s.154 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act by the^j'd respondent for^{the AY 2020-2 l,as being illegal, arbitrary and againstthe} provisions of the Act and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith^{issue refundof Rs.6,24,36,570/-along with interest} to the petitioner and pass such other orders.

¶30

¶31

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that she has instructions to state that Rs.5,35,36,071/- has been duly paid

¶32

and credited to the bank account of the petitioner herein.

¶33

Leamed counsel for the petitioner admits the said fact and submits that an amount of Rs.5,35,36,071/- was credited on 03.12.2023.

¶34

However, the interest part has ,not been added to the said amount.

¶35

¶36

¶37

Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for^the

¶38

Department submits that the claim of interest of the petitioner has^also been proceed and if it has not been^{paid, appropriatesteps shallbe}

¶39

taken in accordance with law, at the earliest

¶40

ln the light of the submission made^{by the learned counselfor the} Department, we do not find any^{reason to keep the writ petition} pending. The Writ Petition accordingly stands^{disposed of.} It^is

¶41

expected that as far as the claim of^{interest is concemed,the authority} shall take steps in accordance^{withlaw at the earliest}

¶42

6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications^{pending if any in this writ}

¶43

petition, shall stand closed. No order^as to costs.

¶44

SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSTSTANT RFGr9[RAR //TRUE COPY// Ml-/ SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Sub K lmpact Solutions Limited, Centralized Processing^{Center, lncome} Tax Department, Bengaluru.

¶47

The Principal Commissioner of lncome^Tax-1, 7th Floor,^l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad 500004,^T.S.

¶48

The Deputy Commissioner of lncome^{Tax, Circle 3(1} ),^{7th Floor, Signature} Towers, Kondapur Road, Hyderabad^500084,T.S.

¶49

The lncome Tai Officer, Ward-1(1),^{Signature Towers, KondapurRoad,} Hyderabad 500084, T.S.

¶50

One CC to SRl. A. V. RAGHU^{RAM, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶51

One CC to SRl. J.V. PRASAD, SENIOR^{STANDING COUNSEL} IOPUCI

¶52

Two CD Copies BM

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511212023

ORDER

199 STATE o
t2 stt $8 o
:oo lt
t
t oespPj C

¶58

WP.No.31893 of 2023

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Sub K Impact Solutions Limited v. Sub K Impact Solutions Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sub K Impact Solutions Limited v. Sub K Impact Solutions Limited

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. Colors Out door advertising Vs The Assistant commissioner of Central Tax

Kallam Subba Rao Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds), And Another

Mr. Sathyanarayana Pandula Vs The Income Tax Officer

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Naazia Khan

Telangana Girijan Cop-operative Corporation Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Atika Sathyamma Vs The State of Telangana