Case Title | Vajra Global Consulting Services LLP vs Assistant Director of Income Tax |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY |
Citation | 2024 (03) GSTPanacea 35 HC Madras W.P.No.23800 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.23305 & 23308 of 2023 |
Judgment Date | 04-March-2024 |
The petitioner has contested two orders, one dated 27th March 2021 and another dated 10th July 2023. The primary contention revolves around the discrepancy in the amounts mentioned in these orders and seeks a refund of the differential amount between Rs.18,53,863 and Rs.10,88,863.
According to the petitioner, the return of income was filed for the assessment year 2020-2021, wherein they had claimed a TDS credit of Rs.10,88,863. However, at the time of filing the return, a TDS of Rs.7,65,000, deducted by M/s. Richfeel Health and Beauty Private Limited, was not reflected in Form 26AS. Subsequently, the petitioner’s contention is that this unreflected TDS amount should be accounted for, resulting in the differential sum they are seeking as a refund.
The petitioner in this case filed their tax return, and a credit of Rs. 7,65,000/- was reflected in Form 26AS linked to the petitioner’s PAN. However, upon scrutiny, it was found that the total amount deducted by way of TDS for the assessment year 2020-2021 was Rs. 18,53,863/-. The petitioner, therefore, filed a rectification petition seeking adjustment for the full amount deducted. The rectification petition was disposed of, stating that no further payment was due. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that while the total TDS deduction was Rs. 18,53,863/-, credit was only given for Rs. 10,88,863/-. The standing counsel for the respondents acknowledged this discrepancy.
The court observed that since credit was not provided for the entire amount deducted as TDS, specifically the differential amount of Rs. 7,65,000/-, as indicated by the documents on record, the petitioner is entitled to a refund for this amount. Therefore, the court deemed it necessary to interfere with the impugned orders.
In this ruling, the court quashes the challenged orders and instructs the respondents to refund the petitioner a sum of Rs.7,65,000. The directive mandates the completion of this refund process within a maximum period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of the court’s order. The writ petition is granted, with no costs imposed. As a result, any associated miscellaneous petitions are concluded.
Download Pdf:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law: