Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 9(1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 80 OF 2021 Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd...Petitioner VersusAsst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 9(1)(2) & Anr...Respondents ..................... Mr. Nishant Thakar a/w. Jasmin Amalsadwala i/b. PDS Legal for thePetitioner.Petitioner. Ms. Swapna Gokhale i/b. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate forRespondents.Respondents. ..................... CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2021. P.C.: Heard Mr. Nishant Thakar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. Swapna Gokhale, learned counsel holding for Mr. SureshKumar, learned standing counsel revenue for the respondents. 2.By filing this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitutionof India petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release thepending refund amounting to Rs.3,34,42,610.00. 3.After notice in this case was issued on 20.10.2020, Mr. SureshKumar, learned standing counsel revenue made a statement before uson 17.12.2020 that Income Tax Department had processed the refund amount payable to the petitioner and had thereafter sent it to theCentral Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore for doing the needful. 4.Today, Ms. Gokhale, learned counsel has tendered replyaffidavit on behalf of the respondents in Court which we haveaccepted. The same may be kept as part of the record. In paragraph-3 it is stated that the reply affidavit has been filed for the limitedpurpose of not contesting the referred petition. In paragraph-5.5 it isstated that refund claim of the petitioner was pending before thePrincipal Commissioner of Income-Tax(1), who had put on hold thesame due to pendency of this writ petition. However, it has beenexplained and clarified that the Principal Commissioner did not infactrecommend withholding the refund; rather insisted that the refundwould be granted by the CPC. 5. Be that as it may, since respondents have admitted thatpetitioner is entitled to refund and that they had processed the refundclaim of the petitioner where after it has been sent to CPC, Bangalorefor releasing the refund to the petitioner, we are of the view that itwould meet the ends of justice if CPC is directed to release the duerefund amount of the petitioner expeditiously alongwith applicableinterest and in any case within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order, since we find that the refund processing was completed on 17.12.2020 and almost two months have elapsedsince then. 6.Accordingly, direction is issued to the CPC for releasing the duerefund amount to the petitioner with applicable interest within aperiod of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.Writ petition is disposed of. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitallysigned byRavindraRavindra M.AmberkarM.Date:Amberkar2021.02.1617:09:11+0530