Midrex Technologies Incorporatedthrough v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1),International Taxation, New Delhi

$~38 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 2883/2017 MIDREX TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATEDThrough: ..... PetitionerMr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Prakash Kumar,Mrs. Rashmi Singh, Ms. Rubal Mainiand Ms. Mehvish Khan, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1),INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%29.03.2017 CM No. 12596/2017 (for exemption) 1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed off. W.P.(C) 2883/2017 3.Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel accepts notice onbehalf of the respondents. 4.With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 5.The petitioner is aggrieved that its refund claims for AssessmentYears (AYs) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 have not been so far processed.W.P.(C) 2883/2017Page 1 of 3 He submits that the refunds are on account of TDS deductions made by theremitters and that these are legitimate dues. The respondent, represented byits counsel on advance notice, submits that the petitioner’s application ispending before the Authority for Advance Rulings (‘AAR’) since 2013. Interms of Section 245RR of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’),the AO would not possess the jurisdiction to process any application withrespect to pending matters.It is, however, submitted on instructions thatthe refund with respect to AY 2015-16 would be processed andappropriately made in accordance with law and, therefore, a direction isissued to the AO to process the refund claim for that year and makeappropriate orders in accordance with law, especially considering thedirections of this Court in Tata Teleservices Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2016)69 Taxman 226 (Del) and Indus Towers Limited Vs. Union of India &Ors. (W.P.(C) No.3665/2015, decided on 06.10.2016). Such orders shall bemade within four weeks. 6.The Court was informed during the hearing that there is a vacuum inthe position of the Chairmanship in the AAR, which had hitherto impededits functions and that the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction CaseNo.17261/2016 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. Union of India) by its judgment dated18.10.2016 had, by way of an interim arrangement, directed the Member(Judicial) to discharge the functions of the Chairman of the AAR.It issubmitted that the AAR should be directed to decide the petitioner’sapplication, which has remained pending for four years. The Court is of theview that the AAR should consider and make appropriate orders as towhether the petitioner’s application can be disposed off expeditiously,W.P.(C) 2883/2017Page 2 of 3 having regard to its pendency for four years. The AAR may appropriatelyconsider this request and make an order in this regard (i.e. expeditiousdisposal) within four weeks from today. 7.The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms.8.A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties under the signaturesof the Court Master.8.A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties under the signaturesof the Court Master. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. MARCH 29, 2017sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J. W.P.(C) 2883/2017