Bombay High Court
Laqshya Media Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:2690-DB
Sayyed 21-WP.5318.2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5318 OF 2024
Laqshya Media Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,
Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Ravi Sawana a/w Ms. Neha Sharma and Ms. Priyanshi Chokshi i/b.
Mr. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. C. Mohanty for the Respondents.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : M. S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 17 February 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sonak, J.):-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request
of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner had sought for a writ of mandamus to direct
the first respondent to issue a refund of Rs.7,69,17,030/- due for the
assessment year 2023-2024 along with interest under Section 244A(1)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") till the date of grant of refund.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, based on instructions,
however, states that the major portion of the refund is now granted.
Therefore, the Petitioner's grievance is now restricted to the adjustment
of the refundable amount of Rs.16,81,893/- which was adjusted
towards the penalty order allegedly dated 14 March 2022. This
adjustment was made by order dated 16 February 2024.
Sayyed 21-WP.5318.2024.docx
5. Mr. Sawana, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that
during Section 245 proceedings, the Petitioner was granted an
opportunity to show cause as to why adjustment should not be made
against the demand raised in the penalty order dated 14 March 2022.
He submitted that the Petitioner responded by pointing out that no such
order was ever served upon the Petitioner, and, therefore, there was no
question of any adjustment. The Petitioner also requested for furnishing
the copy of such order, if any.
6. Mr. Sawana submits that without furnishing any copy, the
impugned adjustment was made and, therefore, the Petitioner instituted
this petition. In this Court, the Petitioner was given a copy of the
penalty order dated 14 March 2022. From the perusal of this copy and
also the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, it is apparent that this
penalty was digitally signed on 22 May 2024.
7. Mr. Sawana, therefore, submitted that based on an order digitally
signed on 22 May 2024, there was no question of issuing the order
dated 16 February 2024 and making an adjustment of the otherwise
refundable amount of Rs.16,81,893/-. He submits that such adjustment
is ex facie without jurisdiction and should be interfered with.
8. Mr. Mohanty submits that the penalty order is dated 14 March
2022. He submitted that the Petitioner has not challenged such an
order. Therefore, he submitted that the adjustment made after due
compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 245 may not
be interfered with.
9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
material on record.
Sayyed 21-WP.5318.2024.docx
10. We do not intend to interfere with the penalty order dated 14
March 2022, which was digitally signed on 22 May 2024. The Petitioner
possesses an alternative and effective remedy to challenge the same.
11. However, we agree with Mr. Sawana, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, that based upon an order which was digitally signed on 22
May 2024, the Respondents were not entitled to issue the order dated
16 February 2024 adjusting an amount of Rs.16,81,893/- against the
alleged dues arising out of this order which was digitally signed only
thereafter i.e. on 22 May 2024. As of 16 February 2024, we cannot
reasonably hold that any amount was due and payable by the Petitioner
which could have been adjusted from out of the refunds that had to be
made to the Petitioner.
12. On this short ground, we set aside the order dated
16 February 2024 and direct the Respondents to refund
Rs.16,81,893/-- to the Petitioner within four weeks from today. If the
amount is not refunded within four weeks from today, it will carry
interest as provided under the law. This shall be without prejudice to
any action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
13. If so advised, the petitioner is free to challenge the penalty
order digitally signed on 22 May 2024 and communicated to the
Petitioner in these proceedings following law. All parties' contentions in
this regard are kept open to be decided by the appellate authority in the
first instance.
14. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any
cost order. All concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Date: 18/02/2025 16:16:37
