Orissa High Court
M/S. Orissa Stevedores Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 November, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.31549 of 2025
M/s. Orissa Stevedores Ltd. ... Petitioner
Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate
along with Ms. Kajol Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ... Opposite Parties
Circle-1, Cuttack and others
Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty,
Senior Standing Counsel
along with Mr. Avinash Kedia,
Junior Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 13.11.2025
01. 1. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing this
writ petition to ventilate its grievance with the following
prayer(s):
"Under the aforesaid circumstances it is prayed
therefore that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously
pleased to:
(A) Admit the Writ Application;
(B) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ directing the Opp.Party
No.3 to grant refund due to the petitioner vide
Intimation U/s.143(1) dt.13.12.2024 for A.Y. 2024-25
vide Annexure-1 and Order dt.29.03.2025 for A.Y.
2018-19 vide Annexure-7 along with interest u/s.244A
of the Income Tax Act from the date the same is due till
date of actual payment in the ends of justice;
(C) To further hold the impugned adjustment of
refundable amount vide Intimation dt.11.03.2025 vide
Annexure-3 relating to assessment year 2024-25
against demand of tax for the period 2014-15 which is
not recoverable as per Office Memorandum
dt.31.07.2017 as being illegal and arbitrary and to
direct refund of the same within a specified period as
may be directed by this Hon'ble Court in the end of
justice;
(D) To further hold the impugned proposed
adjustment of refundable amount as per intimation
dt.23.08.2025 vide Annexure-8 relating to assessment
year 2018-19 against outstanding demand of other tax
periods as being illegal and arbitrary and to direct
refund of the same within a specified period as may be
directed by this Hon'ble Court in the end of justice;
(E) To pass such order/orders, writ/writs,
direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper.
(F) To allow this writ petition.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray."
2. Facts outlined in the writ petition reveal that the
Centralized Processing Centre (CPC)-opposite party no.3 issued
intimation dated 13.12.2024 under Section 143 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short, "the I.T. Act") pertaining to Assessment Year
2024-25, reflecting refund to the tune of Rs.6,00,56,220/-. Vide
order dated 29.03.2025, assessment under Section 143(3) read
with Section 264 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19
culminated in refund to the tune of Rs.5,32,52,783/-. On
12.02.2025, an intimation under Section 245 of the I.T. Act was
issued proposing to adjust the refund arising for the Assessment
Year 2024-25 against outstanding demand pertaining to the
Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2017-18. Since such proposal was
not within the knowledge of the petitioner, no response could be
filed. However, on 11.03.2025, the CPC adjusted the amount of
refund to the tune of Rs.5,75,00,090/- against outstanding demand
of Rs.6,48,38,971/- for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
2.1. The petitioner objected to such adjustment vide letter
dated 17.03.2025, requesting the CPC to restore the amounts
adjusted, since it has deposited 20% of the demand of the said
Assessment Year 2014-15. Further communication vide letter
dated 22.04.2025 was made to the Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Circle-I, Cuttack, apprising such fact of adjustment
without affording opportunity. However, the CPC on 25.04.2025
sent an e-mail to the petitioner stating that the refund for the
Assessment Year 2024-25 has been adjusted against the
outstanding demand for the assessment 2014-15 and after
adjustment a sum of Rs.79,15,008/- is outstanding against it. It is
also clarified that since no communication was received from
Assessing Officer indicating demand disputed the refund of
Assessment Year 2024-25 was adjusted against the outstanding
demand. While the matter stood thus, though refund was allowed
pertaining to Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2024-25,
communication dated 23.08.2025 under Section 245 of the I.T.
Act proposing the adjustment against the outstanding demand for
Assessment Year 2010-17 has been communicated for furnishing
reply within 21 days from the receipt of such communication.
3. Sri Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner referring to "Demand Analysis and
Recoverability (DAR) status report" dated 11.08.2025 issued by
the Income Tax Department, Office of the Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack
(Annexure-9) submitted that the adjustment of refund against the
alleged outstanding for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2017-18
is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical inasmuch as the Demand
Analysis and Recoverability status report indicates "amount
collectible" is „0‟ (zero).
3.1. Referring to Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 read
with Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017 issued by the Central
Board of Direct Taxes, learned Senior Counsel pressed into
service the following paragraph contained in the writ petition:
"15. That, it is submitted that CBDT Office
Memorandum vide F.NO.404/72/93-ITCC
dt.31.07.2017 in partial modification of the Office
Memorandum dt.29.02.2016 issued guidelines that an
assessee has to make payment of 20% of the
Outstanding Demand instead of 15% subject to which
balance demand shall remain stayed till disposal of the
first appeal. Looking into the aforesaid Office
Memorandum dt.31.07.2017 and the fact that the
petitioner has already paid 20% of the disputed
amount of tax while filing of the appeal of the A.Y.
2014-15, subsequent adjustment of refund for the
period 2024-25 against the outstanding demand of tax
for the said period i.e. 2014-15 is untenable and the
said adjustment is bad in law."
3.2. He further submitted that since proper opportunity was
denied to place material to furnish evidence that the petitioner had
already discharged its liability with respect to Assessment Year
2014-15, it is entitled to refund of adjustment made in excess of
20% of the disputed tax demand.
3.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Reliable Security and Intelligence Services (Orissa) Private
Limited vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and others;
W.P.(C) No.11546 of 2025 disposed of on 11.08.2025.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4.1. It appears from the documents enclosed with writ petition
that the petitioner was granted refund for Assessment Years 2024-
25 and 2018-19. The authority sought to adjust the refund amount
against outstanding dues for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to
2017-18.
4.2. It is manifest from the Demand Analysis and
Recoverability Status Report ("DAR", for short) vide Annexure-9,
that:
Demand Analysis and Recoverability Status Report
PAN:AAACO2100L Name-ORISSA STEVEDORES LTD Date of Report:11/08/2025
Address: OSL TOWER, LINK ROAD, AD.MARKET, LINK ROAD, CUTTACK, 753012, Odisha
Summary of Demand
S. No. AY DIN Demand Section Date of Order Demand Amount Amount
Outstanding Difficult to Collectible
(In Rs.) Recover (In (In Rs.)
Rs.)
1 2010-11 2024201040418008433C 154 19/08/2024 4,35,64,192 4,35,64,192 0
2 2011-12 2017201110159490080C 147 28/12/2017 4,08,65,440 4,08,65,440 0
3 2012-13 2017201210159928380C 154 25/01/2018 17,49,71,700 17,49,71,700 0
4 2013-14 2017201310000487144C 154 20/06/2017 10,73,02,990 10,73,02,990 0
5 2014-15 2021201437005133631C 147 30/03/2022 73,38,880 73,38,880 0
6 2014-15 2016201410006189652C 1433 30/12/2016 98,50,395 98,50,395 0
7 2015-16 2021201540409728730C 271(1)(c) 30/03/2022 4,93,52,179 4,93,52,179 0
8 2015-16 2017201510159690816C 1433 30/12/2017 7,24,74,760 7,24,74,760 0
9 2015-16 2021201537002796626C 263 28/09/2021 8,86,39,330 8,86,39,333 -3
10 2016-17 202120164040409781910C 143(3) r.w.s.263 31/03/2022 9,95,31,497 9,95,31,497 0
11 2017-18 2022201737001217296C 263 16/03/2023 3,50,39,324 3,50,39,324 0
Analysis of Demand
S. No. AY Demand Section Demand Outstanding Amount Difficult to Amount Collectible
(in Rs.) Recover (in Rs.)
(in Rs.)
(K) Demand stayed by IT Authorities
Authority Date of Passing of Amount of demand
order by authority stayed in (Rs.)
PCIT 98,50,395
S. No. AY Demand Section Demand Outstanding Amount Difficult to Recover Amount Collectible (in Rs.)
(in Rs.) (in Rs.)
4.3. Glance at paragraph-12 of the writ petition, it is
demonstrably manifest that the petitioner has been misdirected by
the figure „0‟ placed against the column "amount collectible" in
DAR. Close scrutiny of Annexure-9 (DAR) reveals that amounts
of demand are placed under the heading "difficult to recover". As
it appears the IT Department on perceiving the refunds flown in
the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2024-25 if released, the
amount shown "difficult to recover" may not possibly be
impossible in future, sought to adjust. As against this only
averment is found at paragraph 6 of the writ petition as follows:
"*** since the aforesaid Intimation dated 12.02.2025 was not
within the knowledge of the petitioner reply to the same could not
be filed, thereafter on dated 11.03.2025 the opposite party No.3
without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner has
adjusted the amount of refund of Rs.5,75,00,090/- for the
A.Y.2024-25 as against the outstanding demand of
Rs.6,48,38,971/- for the A.Y. 2014-15."
From the above averment it is not forthcoming as to legal
justification for the officer to afford "further opportunity",
particularly when it is not pleaded that the intimation under
Section 245 inviting explanation was not served. Learned Senior
Advocate could not point out any statutory mandate contained in
the I.T. Act to obligate the authority to grant "further opportunity"
when the petitioner fails to respond to the intimation.
4.4. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to go into such
factual dispute at this stage. However, from the averments made
in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it emanates that the petitioner
claims to have deposited 20% of the disputed amount of tax while
filing appeal challenging demand raised pertaining to the
Assessment Year 2014-15. Nothing is placed on record to show
the date of filing and the details of such appeal nor the result of
such appeal. Furthermore, there is no averment whatsoever in the
writ petition with respect to discharge of liability as shown in the
DAR.
5. Under the above premise, considering the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel that if the petitioner is granted one
opportunity it would demonstrate that the Income Tax Department
has collected more than what is due or outstanding vis-à-vis
Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 as modified in Office
Memorandum dated 31.07.2017. This Court appreciating
predicament of the petitioner in not responding to the intimation
at appropriate time and taking cognizance of the figures contained
in DAR depicting "amount difficult to recover" and amounts of
refund computed for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2024-25,
in the interest of justice directs the petitioner to appear before the
officer concerned on or before 1st December, 2025, to avail such
opportunity. The officer shall afford an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and take into consideration evidence, if any,
adduced by it on the date of appearance mentioned above or may
fix any other date suitable for proceeding further in the matter.
Based on material on record, the authority concerned shall take a
fresh decision in accordance with law and pass appropriate
reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of
communication of this order.
5.1. It is clarified that this Court having expressed no opinion
touching upon the merit of the matter, there is no fetter on the
authority concerned to undertake thorough examination of the
outstanding dues vis-à-vis refunds and pass orders afresh.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Aswini
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary in-charge)
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Nov-2025 11:36:24
