IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.5093/2019 (T – IT) BETWEEN:
SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LTD., HAVING ADDRESS AT 139/25, RIGN ROAD, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071, REP. HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR Mr. RAJIV C. MODY AGED 61 YEARS ... PETITIONER [BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.] AND:
1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-6, BMTC BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095, KARNATAKA 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6 BMTC BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 KARNATAKA 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-10, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 KARNATAKA 4. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER'S CASE SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY R-1 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OR THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF COMPLETE STAY FROM RECOVERY OF DEMAND RISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (ANNEXURE-G) AND ANNEXURE-L DATED 22.01.2019 AND AFTER GOING THROUGH AND EXAMINING THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY, PROPRIETY AND LEGALITY THEREOF, BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE SAME.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of complete stay from recovery of demand arising from the assessment order dated 10.12.2018 relating to the assessment year 2016-17, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith grant to the petitioner the outstanding refund dues disposing of the rectification applications of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (‘Act’ for short) and is inter alia engaged in the business of Product Engineering and Digital Transformation providing concept to market, chip to cognition services to global leaders in Semiconductor, Automotive, Industrial, Smart Devices and Wearables Enterprise Grade Devices, Satellite Communication and Transportation industries. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act relating to the assessment year 2016-17. Respondent No.1 passed the order dated 10.12.2018 impugned herein, rejecting the application of the petitioner for stay of recovery of outstanding demand. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though respondent No.1 has passed the order dated 22.01.2019 pursuant to the order sheet noting of respondent No.2 granting stay of balance outstanding demand subject to payment of 20% of the outstanding demand for the assessment year in question and refund orders for other assessment years have also been passed by various orders, the refunds are not been given to the petitioner and no rectification applications are disposed of inasmuch as the refund to be made to the petitioner after adjusting 20% of the demand.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. T. Suryanarayana would submit that the total of Rs.39,32,30,789/- is the amount to be refunded to the petitioner relating to the various assessment years. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax by letter dated 22.01.2019 though granted the stay order subject to the conditions that payment of 20% of the tax shall be made by 30.01.2019 and the assessee has the option of preferring to adjust 20% of the demand against refunds of other years, it is subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has clarified that in the order sheet noting dated 22.01.2019, the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru has commented as:
“There is a demand in the case Rs.68.18 Cr. Refund Assessee claims is about 26.6 Cr. In the hearing before me, Assessee had put a following prayer in every case in view of instructions issued by CBDT, the applicant shall not be directed to pay the amount in excess of 20%. In view of the above circular, though Assessee asked for the full stay. After considering all the facts of the case as there is substantial demands, Assessee is directed to pay 20% of the demand. Balance may be refunded. It is intimated to JCIT, Spl. Range.”
In view of the aforesaid, the department has to refund the amount after adjusting 20% of the demand. Accordingly, the learned counsel seeks for a direction to the authorities concerned.
4. The learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the order sheet noting dated 22.01.2019 of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru which is communicated to the petitioner on 13.02.2019.
5. In the circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled to refund after adjusting 20% of the demand. The Assessing Officer - respondent No.1 shall determine the refund amount to which the petitioner is entitled to, after disposing of the rectification application and the same shall be refunded to the petitioner in accordance with law, in an expedite manner, preferably within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR