High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 07 DEL CK 0187

Hyosung Corporation vs Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 29 July 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan, J · Sanjeev Narula, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 4680 Of 2020 & Civil Writ Petition No. 4692 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 386 words

Manmohan, J

C.M.No.16897/2020

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.4692/2020

1.

The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video

conferencing.

2.

Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner’s rectification application for assessment

year 2016-17 dated 27th May, 2019 and to allow the adjustment of resulting demand amounting to Rs.3,14,51,422/- against the refunds arising to the

petitioner pursuant to disposal of rectification applications filed for assessment years 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 and Appeal Effect application filed for

the assessment year 2010-11.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has filed a rectification application dated 27th May, 2019 to acknowledge on its own tax liability

of Rs.3,14,51,422/-, inadvertently not levied vide the assessment order dated 29th December, 2018.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has failed in its statutory duty by not adjudicating the petitioner’s rectification

application dated 27th May, 2019 within the time stipulated in Section 154(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He states that the statutory limitation

period of six months for deciding the rectification application had expired on 30th November, 2019.

5.

He submits that the inaction of the respondent No.2 is contrary to and in violation of CBDT Circular No.14/2001 and CBDT Instruction No.1/2016.

6.

Learned counsel for petitioner states that pursuant to its spin off and transfer of contracts, no operations are left with the petitioner and pending

refund is the only reason because of which petitioner’s office has not been closed.

7.

Issue notice.

8.

Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

9.

Keeping in view the limited prayer sought in the present writ petition, this Court disposes of the same by directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the

petitioner’s aforesaid rectification application within six weeks by way of a reasoned order and to allow adjustment of resulting demand against

refunds arising in previous and subsequent assessment years, if any, in accordance with law. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

10.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.