Merit Credit Corporation Limited v. Oral Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16238 of 2021 ========================================================== MERIT CREDIT CORPORATION LIMITED Versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ==========================================================Appearance:MR TUSHAR HEMANI with MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MR BHATT with MR KARAN SANGHAI for the Respondent(s) No. 1========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANIandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 26/10/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1.By way of the present petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner challenges the inaction onthe part of the respondent of not considering the applicationsmoved by the petitioner for re-issuance of revised Form 3 inrelation to the declaration filed under the Direct Tax Vivad seVishwas Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for theassessment year 2011-12. 2.While framing the assessment under Section 143(3) readwith Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer, based oncertain information, had treated the business loss as bogus.The appeal was preferred against the said assessment order dated 29.12.2015 before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). According to the petitioner, there was neither anysearch under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act carried out atthe premises of the petitioner nor any requisition was madeunder Section 132(A) of the Income Tax Act and theassessment for the year under consideration i.e. 2011-12 wasframed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2.1.On 17.03.2020, the Act received the assent of thePresident and the Act was enacted. 2.2.The petitioner chose to avail the benefit of the Act andfiled a declaration in the prescribed forms on 29.12.2020 forsettling the appeal for the said assessment year. The amountpayable for settling the appeal was Rs. 88,61,351/-. Thepetitioner, in fact, had paid the taxes aggregating toRs.1,03,24,750/-. According to the petitioner, he was entitledto the refund of Rs. 14,63,399/-. 2.3.The designated authority issued Form 3 on 11.01.2021whereby the amount payable by the petitioner was worked outat Rs. 1,16,57,935/- and hence, the additional amount ofRs.13,33,185/- was worked out as against the claim of refund.In order to buy peace of mind, the said additional amount ofRs.13,33,185/- as quantified by the designated authority had been paid. The immunity was granted to the petitioner inaccordance with the scheme of the Act. 2.4.There were several representations received by theGovernment and CBDT for clarification with regard to theclassification of the case as a search case. The petitioner alsorequested vide its letter dated 24.03.2021, after the circularwas issued by the CBDT on 23.03.2021 being Circular No. 04of 2021 and requested to re-issue Form 3 after consideringthe case of the petitioner as non-searched case. There were several representations received by the 2.5.The subsequent request of 31.03.2021 and lastly on15.09.2021 have not been replied to and hence, this petitionwith the following prayers: - “(a) direct the Respondent to rectify the errorcrept in computing disputed tax after taking intoaccount Circular No. 4/2021 issued by the CBDTon 23.03.21 and issue revised From 3 in relation todeclaration filed under the Act for settling appealpending before the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2011-12; (b)direct the Respondent to refund a sum ofRs.27,96,584/- legitimately due to the petitionerpursuant to filing of declaration under the Act forsettling appeal pending before the Commissionerof Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2011-12 along with interest; 2.5.The subsequent request of 31.03.2021 and lastly on15.09.2021 have not been replied to and hence, this petitionwith the following prayers: - “(a) direct the Respondent to rectify the errorcrept in computing disputed tax after taking intoaccount Circular No. 4/2021 issued by the CBDTon 23.03.21 and issue revised From 3 in relation todeclaration filed under the Act for settling appealpending before the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2011-12; (b)direct the Respondent to refund a sum ofRs.27,96,584/- legitimately due to the petitionerpursuant to filing of declaration under the Act forsettling appeal pending before the Commissionerof Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2011-12 along with interest; (c)pending the admission, hearing and finaldisposal of this petition, direct the Respondent torefund a sum of Rs. 27,96,584/- legitimately due tothe petitioner pursuant to filing of declaration under the Act for settling appeal pending beforethe Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) forAssessment Year 2011-12 along with interest; (d)Any other and further relief deemed just andproper be granted in the interest of justice; (e)to provide for the cost of this petition.” 3.We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. TusharHemani assisted by learned advocate Ms. Parikh for thepetitioner. We have also requested learned Senior AdvocateMr. M.R.Bhatt assisted by learned advocate Mr. KaranSanghai and without entering into the merits, we have chosento dispose it of at an admission stage before issuance of thenotice as the only request on the part of the petitioner is forthe authority concerned to respond. 4.We have considered that thrice the petitioner has madea request to the authority concerned i.e. the respondentherein on dated 24.03.2021, 31.03.2021 and thereafter on15.09.2021. None of these communications have beenresponded to. 5.Let the same be responded to within four (4) weeks fromthe date of receipt of copy of this order. 6.The Court has chosen not to enter into the merits. It isleft to the authority concerned to decide in accordance with law. It is only because there had been no response on the partof the authority concerned that the Court has chosen to directthe this to be decided. Respondent shall respond to therequest of the petitioner in accordance with law without beinginfluenced by disposed of this matter. 7.Petition is disposed of in above terms. (SONIA GOKANI, J) Bhoomi (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)