Disposed

M/s. Tsi Business Parks (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. v. Centralized Processing Centre

Telangana HC17 Feb 2025WP/16801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging adjustment of income tax refunds against non-collectible demands. With consent of both parties, the impugned adjustment order dated 23.02.2024 was set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to hear the petitioner afresh and pass an order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned adjustment order dated 23.02.2024 set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh hearing and order; no costs.

M/s. Tsi Business Parks (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Centralized… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁵ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16801 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. TSI Business Parks (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., SY. No. 1^'t S(Part), -Rep. Waverock Buildhg, Nanakramg.uda Viliage, Hyderabad -500008, Telanlana, by its Director, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jogi.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Centralized^ Processin_g Cenke, lncome Tax Department, post Bag No. 1 , Electronic City Post Ofll'ce, Bengaluru -560500.

¶12

or lncome rax' circle 2(1)' Ranse 52, Sisnatures Iffi3:fr'rY":r'#mislif,rer

¶13

Union of lndia, through Secretary, Minister of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-1 10001.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in adjusting refunds against non-collectible demands as arbitrary, illegal, set aside the same and consequenfly direct the Respondents to refund the adjusted amount to the tune of Rs_ 8,17,63,2151- with applicable interest at the earliest. This Honourable Court may also consider imposing exemplary costs on the Respondents

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 8,17.63,215l- with applicable interest forthwitl-

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. ROHAN KHARE APPEARING FOR SRI G. NARENDRA CHETTY

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1&2: MS. J. SUNITAJUNIOR

¶20

STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX APPEARING FOR SRI P. MURALI KRISHNA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSELFOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶21

Counsel for the Fiespondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I I

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JuSTICI SUJOY PAUL

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA

¶28

WRTT PETITION No. 16801 of2024

¶29

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy paul)

¶30

¶31

Sri Rohan Khare, learned counsel appearing for Sri G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms J.Sunita, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income tax Department appearing for Sri p.Mura1i Krishna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶32

With the consent, hnally heard

¶33

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the impugned adjustment order dated 23.02.2024 be set aside and the matter may be restored before respondent No.2 with a direction to decide the matter afresh.

¶34

In view of the consensus arrived at, the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 is set aside. The respondent No.2 sha_ll hear the petitioner a-fresh and pass an order in accordance with law.

¶35

¶36

The petitionel^{sha1l appea-r before respondentNo 2on} 27.O2.2025^{at 11:3,CrA.M', for whichno fresh notice is requiredto} be issued^{to the} Petitioner

¶37

Accordingly,^{the WritPetition1s} disposed of "vithout expressing^{any opi-r:.ionon the meritsof the case} No order as^to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneou^{s petitions pending, if aly, shall stand cl':sed'}

¶39

SD/. A. SREENIVASA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . Centralized^{F'rocessingCentre,lncome^^TaxDepartment' Post Bag No 1'} Er"ci.nii^{citv Postofrce, Bengaluru -560500'}

¶44

z. iii-bdiirtv^{tiommissioneioi ii"ornt Tax' Circle 2(1) Range 52' Signatures} Tower. HYderabad.

¶45

: ixli"S6"i6iir\i-J,iion^{or tndia, Ministerof Finance,Departmenlof Revenue,} North Block i'lew^Delhi-110001

¶46

4 6;;' b"Ci;"^{s n'i.'c. liAnett o RA c H ErrY, Ad^voc9le} !9^{P U C.l-} i SiiE dd i6^{ririi. p. r',rilaniikntsuNA, sENloR sc FoRINCoMErAX} DEPARTMET.lT [OPUCIfi;ei

¶47

6 DEPARTMET.lT [OPUCIfi;ei to:srii.'GnoiinnvEEN^{KUMAR,DY sollcroRGENERAL oF} INDIA [oPLrc]

¶48

Two BM CD^CoPies (k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710212025

ORDER

St,
.J
{
r
o
r) 2{ frl,lr 2$6
*
l n.--^. ,-t

¶53

WP.No.1680'l^{of 2024}

¶54

DISPOSING^{I)F THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT GOSTS

¶55

(A;!v g i>li

M/s. Tsi Business Parks (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. v. Centralized Processing Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Tsi Business Parks (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. v. Centralized Processing Centre

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

Mr. Venkata Subbaraya Choudary Maddukuri, Vs Deputy Commissioner

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank of India) Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal No.1

M/s.Oasis Poly Profile Private Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner (St)

Bhagini Mandal (trust) Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Bhagini Mandal (trust) Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Mukunda Flexi Pack Vs The Appellate Joint Commissioner (State Tax)