M/S.vaata Infra Ltd., Previously Known As Wescare (India) Ltd., Rep., By Its Director, Mr.v.r.raghunathan v. The Income Tax Officer, Company Ward-Iii (1) Iv Floor, Room

Date of Reserving the JudgmentDate of Pronouncing the Judgment09 .10.201427 .10.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM M/s.Vaata Infra Ltd.,Previously known asWescare (India) Ltd.,Rep., by its Director,Mr.V.R.Raghunathan,No.16, Centoph Road,Teynampet,Chennai – 600 018. ...PetitionerVs The Income Tax Officer,Company Ward-III (1)IV Floor, Room No.415, New Block,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai – 600 034....Respondent Prayer :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call forthe records in PAN /Com Ward III/2001-02, dated 12.06.2012,relating to Assessment Year 2001-02 on the file of the respondent,quashing the same and further direct the respondent to issue therefund of an amount of Rs.70,93,382/-. The petitioner a company engaged in the business ofmanufacturing, commissioning, operating and maintenance of Wind Millsand generation and distribution of power there from, has filed this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, toquash the proceedings of the respondent dated 12.06.2012 underSection 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The impugned proceedings states that while giving effect tothe order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai,(Settlement Commission) the demand of Rs.23,16,31,123/- raised videorder dated 31.03.2006, was reduced to Rs.4,72,72,689/- and that fromthe verification of records, it was found that the demand has beenpaid on various dates and was fully paid in July 2007 and theinterest payable under Section 220(2) of the Act for the delayedpayment of tax works out to Rs.73,43,132/- and this demand may bepaid immediately. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, toquash the proceedings of the respondent dated 12.06.2012 underSection 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The impugned proceedings states that while giving effect tothe order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai,(Settlement Commission) the demand of Rs.23,16,31,123/- raised videorder dated 31.03.2006, was reduced to Rs.4,72,72,689/- and that fromthe verification of records, it was found that the demand has beenpaid on various dates and was fully paid in July 2007 and theinterest payable under Section 220(2) of the Act for the delayedpayment of tax works out to Rs.73,43,132/- and this demand may bepaid immediately. 3. The assessment relates to the year 2001-02. The respondentpassed an order of assessment dated 31.03.2006 under Section 143(3)read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and quantified the tax,surcharge and interest under Sections 234A(3), 234B(3) and 234C beinga total amount of Rs.23,16,31,123/-. The petitioner filed anapplication before the Settlement Commission on 15.05.2006. TheSettlement Commission by order dated 15.05.2006, accepted the revisedoffer of additional undisclosed income of Rs.3,34,28,41,978/-, videletter dated 05.03.2008, with reference to the assessment years 1989-99 to 2003-04 as per the annexure to the said order. The SettlementCommission further directed, the Commissioner of Income Tax tocompute the total income, income tax, interest and penalty, if any,payable as per the order of the Settlement Commission and communicateto the petitioner immediately along with demand notice and challan.The petitioner was directed to pay the taxes within thirty five daysof the receipt of the demand notice. On a prayer made by thepetitioner, they were permitted to pay the tax liability in fourquarterly instalments beginning from 30.04.2008 and furnish proof oftax payable to the Settlement Commission and the Assessing Authoritywithin ten days of making the payment. Further, it was directed thatif the tax is not paid within the due date, the tax along withinterest under Section 245D(6) of the Act shall be recovered.Consequent to the order passed by the Settlement Commission, theincome tax payable was computed and a demand notice dated 31.03.2008,was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to payRs.2,24,74,375/-. This was followed by a notice of demand underSection 156 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, by anotherproceedings dated 30.06.2008, the petitioner was intimated that whilepassing orders on 31.03.2008, the tax paid by the petitioner to theextent of Rs.46.30 lakhs was omitted to be given credit and hence,the order dated 31.03.2008, was revised and the amount payable wascomputed as Rs.17,82,437/-. Further, the order dated 30.06.2008, wasmodified by order dated 20.07.2009, wherein it was stated that thepetitioner is eligible for total refund of Rs.19,52,311/- and thiswill be adjusted against the arrears of assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2004-05. Subsequently, the impugned proceedings dated12.06.2012, was passed calling upon the petitioner to pay interestunder Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act to the tune ofRs.73,43,132/-. The petitioner submitted a representation dated18.06.2012, stating that the tax liability has been fully paid andthere is no demand which was payable and hence interest under Section220 of the Income Tax Act, does not arise and requested to passnecessary orders to nullify/rectify the demand as 'nil'. Further,the petitioner requested to process the refunds and issue the sametogether with applicable interest pointing out that the petitionerhas been facing severe financial crunch and income tax has been paidwith great difficulty by disposing of the assets/borrowings.Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27071 of 2012, praying forissuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to implement the order dated24.03.2008, passed by the Settlement Commission and grant refund oftax as detailed in the representation dated 04.08.2009. In theaffidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, it was statedthat notwithstanding the facts, the respondent raised demand noticeunder Section 220 of the Income Tax Act dated 12.06.2012, (impugnedorder in this writ petition) and the petitioner was forced to onceagain clarify all points repeatedly and inspite of the same, therespondent has not acted as per the directions of the SettlementCommission, whose orders are final and binding and no refund has beengranted and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court forthe said relief. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the saidWrit Petition, it was submitted that the business loss eligible to becarried forward for the preceding eight assessment years has beenarrived at and duly set off in accordance with the provisions of theIncome Tax Act. Petitioner's petitions for rectifications in variousyears hav ebeen considered and after giving effect to the order ofthe Hon'ble ITSC, refunds in respect of Assessment years 2000-2001and 2001-02 amounting to Rs.22,52,311'/- has been adjusted againstthe demand payable by the petitioner. Further, the refunds due tothe petitioner for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12 for a sumof Rs.49,53,180/- have also been adjusted against the demand payableby the petitioner for assessment year 2009-10 and earlier years. Thepetitioner's contention of further refunds, if any, needs to bereconciled and worked out after due consideration of pendingproceedings and adjustments as assessee's issues cover a period of 10years from assessment year 2000-01 to 2009-10. Even otherwise, afterreconciling all such TDS claims/rectifications the same is to beadjusted against the pending demand of Rs.3,27,18,094/- as per thedue procedure and process of the law enshrined in I.T., Act.Further, loss of about 31.06 crores including those carried forwardby these two years has been allowed to be carried forward and same isset off against the business income for 2009-10. Hence, departmenthas duly discharged its august duty with due diligence considering huge quantum of pending demand. huge quantum of pending demand. 5. Though the respondent Department took the above stand in thecounter affidavit, the learned Senior counsel for the petitionersubmitted that no such order has been communicated to the petitionerby the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court by orderdated 11.12.2012, directed the respondents to pass a speaking orderand communicate the same to the petitioner so as to enable it to workout the remedy in accordance with law, a time frame of twelve weekswas stipulated. Pursuant there to, an order dated 06.02.2013, wasissued to the petitioner stating that the order of the SettlementCommission pertains to the assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04 and ongiving effect to the same, the total demand has reduced/or resultedin refunds and the same was mentioned in annexure “A” enclosed alongwith the order. Further, it was stated that the status of demand orrefund in respect of subsequent assessment years were furnished inannexure “B” enclosed along with the order. Further, the petitionerwas informed that in case if any further clarification is needed, thepetitioner may approach the respondent independently for eachassessment year. That after adjustment of the refund, there is apending demand of Rs.2,43,14,969/- in the assessment year 2009-10 anddemand under Section 220(2) of Rs.73,43,132/-, in assessment year2001-02. Further, the petitioner was informed that the refundspertaining to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, can bedetermined and issued on completion of the proceedings, which arepending and stayed by this Court. By subsequent communication dated27.02.2013, the respondent furnished the details with regards to theamount payable/refundable to the petitioner for the assessment years1998-99 to 2010-11 and the said communication contained two annexuresgiving the details. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted arepresentation dated 04.03.2013, stating that the order passed underSection 220 is clearly in contravention of the provisions of theIncome Tax Act and derides the power of the Settlement Commission byreopening matters already settled by it and the order under Section220, is attempted to bye-pass the settlement order and the subsequentorder of the Commissioner and therefore, does not confirm to law.This was followed by another representation dated 08.03.2013. In thepresent Writ Petition, the challenge is to the demand of interestunder Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner after elaboratelyreferring to the factual position and referring to the relevantportion of the order passed by the Settlement Commission submittedthat the provision of Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, would notstand attracted to the facts of the petitioner's case, since therespondent themselves admitted that the demand raised has been paidon various dates on or before 31.07.2007 and the consequential demandraised pursuant to the order passed by the Commission, was made onlyon 31.03.2008 and the remittance having been effected by the 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner after elaboratelyreferring to the factual position and referring to the relevantportion of the order passed by the Settlement Commission submittedthat the provision of Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, would notstand attracted to the facts of the petitioner's case, since therespondent themselves admitted that the demand raised has been paidon various dates on or before 31.07.2007 and the consequential demandraised pursuant to the order passed by the Commission, was made onlyon 31.03.2008 and the remittance having been effected by the petitioner eight months prior to the order of assessment, there is nodelay in remittance and no interest is leviable. Further, it issubmitted that the order of assessment having telescoped into theorder of settlement, a notice of demand under Section 156 of theIncome Tax Act was issued on 31.03.2008 and thus, the notice ofdemand/order of assessment dated 31.03.2006, thus cease to beoperative, as there can be only one legal enforcable demand inrespect of an assessment. Further, it is submitted that in terms ofSection 245D(4) of the Act, the order of the Settlement Commission isa consolidated order that addresses the total remittance to beeffected by the petitioner on account of tax, interest and penaltyand therefore, no further levies are envisaged in the light ofSection 245(6A) of the Act. In any event, the impugned orderpurporting to raise a demand over and above the demand directed to bemade by the Settlement Commission is an obvious of jurisdiction.Further, it is reiterated that the disputed demand having been paidbefore 31.07.2007 itself, which has been admitted by the respondent,the question of demanding interest will not arise. Further, it issubmitted that the Income Tax Act provides for remedy by way ofwaiver of interest in terms of Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act.However, the same would be eficatious remedy only in the event ofthe levy being in accordance with law and in the instant case, whenSection 220(2) of the Income Tax Act itself is not applicable to thepetitioner, the question availing remedy under the Act does notarise. On the above grounds, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned proceedings. 7. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent afterreferring to the order passed by the Settlement Commission submittedthat the order dated 31.03.2008, is an order consequent to the orderof the Settlement Commission computing the income tax payable as perthe direction and the interest demanded in the impugned order is forthe period from 01.04.2006 to July 2007 and not for any subsequentperiod or anterior period. Further, it is submitted that in terms ofthe direction issued by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, aspeaking order was passed by the respondent dated 06.02.2013 and allthe details were furnished in the form of annexures, which was alsoonce again communicated by order dated 27.02.2013 and the details inrespect of each of the assessment years were furnished in the form ofan annexure and in a tabulated statement, the details for eachassessment year was furnished, namely, the total demand before theorder of Settlement Commission; demand or refund after giving effectto order of Settlement Commission; demand or refund arising out ofsubsequent modification orders; and remarks in respect of eachassessment year. Further, it is submitted that if the petitioner isaggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner ought to have availedthe remedy under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and withoutavailing the same, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. On theabove submissions, the learned counsel seeks to sustain the impugned proceedings. proceedings. 8. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the time starts to run once a notice under Section 156is being issued and the learned counsel reiterated that thedepartment themselves have accepted that the payments have beeneffected as of July 2007 and therefore, the question of levy ofinterest does not arise under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side andperused the materials placed on record. 10. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated12.06.2012, by which the respondent has demanded interest underSection 220(2) of the Income Tax Act for delayed payment of tax.Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act states that if the amountspecified in any notice of demand under Section 156 is not paidwithin the period limited under sub-section (1) of Section 220, theassessee shall be liable to pay simple interest for every month orpart of a month comprised in the period commencing from the dayimmediately following the end of the period mentioned insub-section(1) and ending with the day on which the amount is paid.The first proviso under sub-section (2) of Section 220 states thatwhere as a result of an order under Section 154 or 155 or 250 or 254or 260 or 262 or 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission undersub-Section (4) of Section 245D, the amount on which interest waspayable under Section 220(2) had been reduced, the interest shall bereduced accordingly and the excess interest paid, if any, shall berefunded. The second proviso states that in respect of any periodcommencing on or before the 31[st] day of March, 1989, and ending afterthat date, such interest shall, in respect of so much of such periodas falls after that date, be calculated at the rate of one andone-half per cent of every month or part thereof. In terms ofSection 220, an assessee will be treated as an assessee in defaultwhen he does not pay the tax liability in respect of a demand raisedby an demand notice under Section 156. There is a difference betweenthe interest payable under Section 220 and the interest payable underSection 234B, which deals with interest for defaults in payment ofadvance tax, as the interest under Section 220 continuous still allthe outstanding demand including the interest is cleared, whileSection 234B would be chargeable for short-fall in the payment ofadvance tax till the date of regular assessment. Therefore, the dateof intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act would be relevant forthe purpose of interest under Section 220 of the Act. It has beenheld that the rationale behind the provisions of Section 220 of theAct to levy interest on delayed payment of tax is not to penalise theparty but to make a provision for compensation for the department onthe failure of the assessee to make payment on the first notice ofdemand [Vikrant Tyres Ltd., vs. ITO reported in (2001) 247 ITR 821 (SC)]. Therefore, unless there is a default in payment of outstandingtax, the question of levy of interest would not arise. (SC)]. Therefore, unless there is a default in payment of outstandingtax, the question of levy of interest would not arise. 11. An order of assessment was passed on 31.03.2006 for theassessment year 2001-02 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 ofthe Income Tax Act. Against the said order of assessment, thepetitioner preferred an application before the Settlement Commissionfor settlement of their case under Section 245C(1) of the Income TaxAct. The Settlement Commission by order dated 18.03.2008, settledthe issue by accepting the revised offer of additional undisclosedincome of Rs.3,34,28,41,978/-, by letter dated 05.03.2008, withreference to the assessment years 1989-99 to 2003-04. The SettlementCommission further directed that in view of the statutory time limitprescribed under Section 245D(4A) of the Act and the direction ofthis Court to dispose of the application before 31.03.2008, theSettlement Commission directed the Commissioner of Income Tax tocompute the total income, income tax, interest and penalty, if any,payable as per the order of the Commission and communicate to theapplicant immediately along with the demand notice and challen underintimation to the Commission. Consequent to the order passed by theCommissioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company CircleIII(3), Chennai passed an order dated 31.03.2008, computing theincome payable and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount asper the demand notice. This was followed by a notice of demand dated31.03.2008, under Section 156 of the Act, notice of demand dated31.03.2008 was revised by subsequent order dated 30.06.2008 andfurther revised by order dated 20.07.2009. It is thereafter theimpugned communication dated 12.06.2012 was sent to the petitionerdemanding interest under Section 220(2) of the Act. The petitionersubmitted a representation on 18.06.2012, requesting to process theapplication for refund and issue the same together with applicableinterest. Further, it was stated that the tax liability has beenfully paid and there is no demand which was payable and hence theinterest under Section 220 does not arise and requested therespondent to pass necessary orders to nullify/rectify the demand.The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court inW.P.No.27071 of 2012, praying for a direction upon the respondents toimplement the order dated 24.03.2008, passed by the SettlementCommission and grant refund of tax as detailed in the representationdated 04.08.2009. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed outthat one of the grounds raised in the Writ Petition is by statingthat inspite of the petitioner placing all the facts and theSettlement Commission having finally settled the case, yet therespondent raised a demand under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act.The petitioner also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.27007 of2012, challenging the notice dated 05.03.2012, insofar as it callsupon the petitioner to show cause as to why the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act should not be initiated andconsequently, to direct the respondent to implement the order of theSettlement Commission. However, the copy of the order passed inW.P.No.27007 of 2012, has not been produced before this Court. 13. Be that as it may, though the petitioner in W.P.No.27071 of2012, sought for a mandamus to implement the order of the SettlementCommission and grant refund, the petitioner restricted the prayersought for in the Writ Petition and requested this Court to directthe respondents to pass a speaking order and communicate the same tothe petitioner so as to enable them to work out their remedies inaccordance with law. This Court recording the statement on behalf ofthe petitioner disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated11.12.2012, which reads as follows:- 13. Be that as it may, though the petitioner in W.P.No.27071 of2012, sought for a mandamus to implement the order of the SettlementCommission and grant refund, the petitioner restricted the prayersought for in the Writ Petition and requested this Court to directthe respondents to pass a speaking order and communicate the same tothe petitioner so as to enable them to work out their remedies inaccordance with law. This Court recording the statement on behalf ofthe petitioner disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated11.12.2012, which reads as follows:- The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct therespondent to implement the order dated 24.3.2008 passed bythe Income Tax Settlement Commissioner, Additional Bench inSettlement Application No.TN/CN 1/06-07/13/IT, dated24.3.2008 and grant refund of tax as detailed in therepresentation dated 4.8.2009 filed by the petitioner. 2. On notice, Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned SeniorStanding counsel for the respondents informs the Court thatthe case of the petitioner was considered and refund wasordered, however the amount which has to be refunded hasbeen adjusted towards tax liability. The manner in whichthe tax was adjusted has been set out in paragraph (3) ofthe counter affidavit, which reads as follows: "3) It is submitted that business loss eligible tobe carried forward for the preceding eightassessment years has been arrived at and duly setoff in accordance with the provisions of the ITAct. Petitioner's petitions for rectifications invarious years have been considered and aftergiving effect to the order of the Hon'ble ITSC,refunds in respect of Asst. Years 2000-2001 and2001-02 amounting to Rs.22,52,311/- has beenadjusted against the demand payable by thepetitioner. Further, the refunds due to thepetitioner for the asst. years 2008-09 and 2011-12for a sum of Rs.49,53,180/- have also beenadjusted against the demand payable by thepetitioner for AY 2009-10 and earlier years. Thepetitioner's contention of further refunds, ifany, needs to be reconciled and worked out afterdue consideration of pending proceedings andadjustments as assessee's issues cover a period of10 years from A.Y.2000-01 to 2009-10. Evenotherwise, after reconciling all such TDS claims/rectifications the same is to be adjustedagainst the pending demand of Rs.3,27,18,094/- asper the due procedure and process of the lawenshrined in I.T. Act. Further loss of about31.06 crores including those carried forward bythese two years has been allowed to be carriedforward and same is set off against the businessincome for 2009-10. Hence department has dulydischarged its august duty with due diligenceconsidering huge quantum of pending demand." 3. However, the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner pleads that no such order has been communicatedto the petitioner by the respondents. 4. In such view of the matter, the respondents aredirected to pass a speaking order and communicate the sameto the petitioner, so as to enable it to workout the remedyin accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed bythe respondents within a period of twelve weeks. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Nocosts. 14. Thus, it appears that when a counter affidavit was filed inthe earlier Writ Petition by the respondent setting out the details,the petitioner though fit to restrict the relief sought for in theWrit Petition and requested the respondent to communicate a speakingorder to them so as to enable them to work out their remedies inaccordance with law. 4. In such view of the matter, the respondents aredirected to pass a speaking order and communicate the sameto the petitioner, so as to enable it to workout the remedyin accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed bythe respondents within a period of twelve weeks. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Nocosts. 14. Thus, it appears that when a counter affidavit was filed inthe earlier Writ Petition by the respondent setting out the details,the petitioner though fit to restrict the relief sought for in theWrit Petition and requested the respondent to communicate a speakingorder to them so as to enable them to work out their remedies inaccordance with law. 15. It is to be noted that even as on the date, whenW.P.No.27071 of 2012, was filed before this Court on 28[th] September2012, the impugned order in this Writ Petition dated 12.06.2012,demanding interest under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act wascommunicated to the petitioner and well within the knowledge of thepetitioner, yet the petitioner did not choose to challenge theimpugned order dated 12.06.2012, in the earlier Writ Petition.Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the demand of interest was in fact contested by raising it asone of the grounds in the Writ Petition, the petitioner did notcanvass the contention in the earlier writ petition and restrictedthe relief based on which the Writ Petition was disposed of by theaforementioned order. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Courtin the earlier Writ Petition dated 11.12.2012, the respondent passedan order dated 06.02.2013, which reads as follows:- PAN. /Co.Ward III(1)/2012-13 Date 06.02.2013ToThe Principal Officer,M/s.Wescare (India) Ltd.,No.16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet,Chennai – 18.Sir/Madam,Sub: Your plea before Hon'ble High Court to implement the Order passed by Hon'ble Settlement Commission & consequent request to grant refund for the relevant years involved – Reg.Ref: Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, dated 11.12.2012 in W.P.No.27071 of 2012. ***** Please refer to the above The Hon'ble High Court of Madras has disposed yourpetition by directing this office to give a speakingcommunication to your goodselves with regard to the relevantsubject of giving effect to Settlement Commission order andissue of consequent refunds. The relevant Income Tax Settlement Commission orderpertains to Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2003-04 and on givingeffect to the same the total demand has reduced/ (or)resulted in refunds and the same is as per annexure 'A'enclosed. The status of demand or refund in respect of subsequentassessment years is also detailed in the annexure 'B'enclosed. In case, if any further clarification is neededyou may approach the undersigned independently for eachassessment year. It may be seen that after issue/adjustmentof refunds, there is a pending demand of Rs.2,43,14,969/- inassessment year 2009-10 and demand under Section 220(2) ofRs.73,43,132/- in assessment year 2001-02. The refundspertaining to assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07 can bedetermined and issued on completion of proceedings which havepresently been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. Yours faithfully (Aarthi Srinivasan) Income Tax OfficerCompany Ward III(1), Chennai. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated19.02.2013, requesting for copies of the documents and the same wascommunicated to the petitioner by proceedings dated 27.02.2013,giving the details in respect of each of the assessment years from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the assessment year 1998-99 onwards. Yours faithfully (Aarthi Srinivasan) Income Tax OfficerCompany Ward III(1), Chennai. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated19.02.2013, requesting for copies of the documents and the same wascommunicated to the petitioner by proceedings dated 27.02.2013,giving the details in respect of each of the assessment years from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the assessment year 1998-99 onwards. 17. In such circumstances, it is to be noted that the respondenthas complied with the directions issued by this Court in the earlierwrit petition by passing a speaking order and communicating the sameto the petitioner. Further information sought for by the petitionerwith regard to the various assessment orders passed for each of theassessment years was also communicated by letter dated 27.02.2013.Along with the said letter, two annexures were appended as annexuresA and B in which a tabulated statement was given mentioning theassessment year the total demand before the order of the SettlementCommission; demand or refund after giving effect to the order of theSettlement Commission; demand or refund arising out of subsequentmodification orders and remarks in respect of each of the assessmentyears. Therefore, the necessary details have been communicated tothe petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved then the petitionerhas to work out the remedy in accordance with law. In fact, suchliberty was reserved to the petitioner when the earlier Writ Petitionwas disposed of by order dated 11.12.2012. 18. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for theDepartment that the interest, which is now demanded, is for theperiod from 01.04.2006 to July 2007. In fact, the SettlementCommission while passing the order dated 18.03.2008, settled the caseof the petitioner and specifically directed the Commissioner ofIncome Tax to compute the total income, income tax, interest andpenalty, if any payable. The contention of the petitioner is thatthe respondent have admitted in the impugned communication that thedemand has been paid on various dates and was fully paid in July2007, therefore, the question of demanding interest does not arise. 19. As pointed out in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd., vs. ITO,(supra), the condition precedent under Section 220 is that thereshould be a demand notice and there should be a default in paying theamount so demanded within the time stipulated in the notice. It isnot the case of the petitioner that the tax payable was paid withoutany default. The contention of the petitioner is that the taxliability was paid well before 31.07.2007 and the demand having beenissued on 21.03.2008, the levy of interest under Section 220(2) ofthe Act is not in accordance with law. It is to be noted that thecommunication dated 31.03.2008, is a consequence to the order passedby the Settlement Commission dated 18.03.2008. Therefore, theinterpretation given by the petitioner for computation of the periodfor the purpose of levy of interest cannot be adjudicated in a WritPetition and the petitioner has to necessarily avail the remedyavailable under the Act. 20.Section 264 of the Act provides for revision of other yearsother than an order to which Section 263 of the Act applies, by an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authority subordinate to the Commissioner and the Commissioner eitheron his own motion or on application by the assessee for revision,call for the records of any proceedings under the act in which anysuch order has been passed and may make such enquiry or cause suchenquiry to be meant and subject to the provisions of the Act passsuch orders thereon not being an order prejudicial to the assessee. 20.Section 264 of the Act provides for revision of other yearsother than an order to which Section 263 of the Act applies, by an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authority subordinate to the Commissioner and the Commissioner eitheron his own motion or on application by the assessee for revision,call for the records of any proceedings under the act in which anysuch order has been passed and may make such enquiry or cause suchenquiry to be meant and subject to the provisions of the Act passsuch orders thereon not being an order prejudicial to the assessee. 21.In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 264 of the Act, in thecase an Application for refund by the assessee, the Application mustbe made within one year from date on which the order in question wascommunicated to the assessee or the date on which he otherwise cameto know of it, whichever is earlier. The proviso under Sub-section(3) of 264 of the Act gives powers to the Commissioner to admit anApplication after the expiry of the period of one year on theassessee saying that it was presented by sufficient cause from makingthe Application within the period stipulated. 22.Sub-section (4) of section 264 of the Act, enumerates thecases in which the Commissioner shall not revise any order inexercise of the powers under Section 264 of the Act. Admittedly,the petitioner's case does not fall within any of the three clausesviz. clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Section 264 (4) of the Act. Thatapart, it has to be pointed out that the petitioner does not seek tochallenge the order passed by the Settlement Commission, but thechallenge is essentially to the demand of interest broadly on threegrounds. 23.Firstly by contending that the respondents themselves havingstated that from the verification of records though the tax due hasbeen fully paid in July, 2007, interest under section 220 (2) of Actcannot be demanded. The second ground being that the demand underSection 156 of the Act, consequent upon the order of the SettlementCommission has been raised only on 31.03.2008 and remittance of theamount has been effected in advance and Section 220(2) of the Actwould not be attracted. Thirdly, that the direction issued in theearlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.2709 of 2012 has not been compliedwith, wherein a direction was issued by this Court to the respondentto pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitionerso as to enable the petitioner to work out the remedy in accordancewith law. 24.In the preceding paragraphs it has been held that the orderand direction issued by this Court has been complied with and detailswere furnished and clarification sought for by the petitioner wasalso replied. Therefore, on the said ground, the impugned ordercannot be put to challenge. The other two grounds of challenge arenot pure questions of law but mixed questions of fact and law, whichcannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition. The consistent plea ofthe Department is that the interest is for the period of default which is from 01.04.2006 to July 2007 and not for any subsequent oranterior period. Thus, those two issues have to be thrashed out bythe petitioner by exhausting the remedy available under theprovisions of the Act, which is available under Section 264 of theAct. 25.In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directingthe petitioner to file a Revision before the Commissioner of IncomeTax under Section 264 of the Act, within a period of three weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such Revision isfiled, the Revisional Authority shall entertain the RevisionPetition, without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation andconsider the same on merits and in accordance with law, without inany manner being influenced by any observation contained in thisorder and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarpbnTo 25.In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directingthe petitioner to file a Revision before the Commissioner of IncomeTax under Section 264 of the Act, within a period of three weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such Revision isfiled, the Revisional Authority shall entertain the RevisionPetition, without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation andconsider the same on merits and in accordance with law, without inany manner being influenced by any observation contained in thisorder and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarpbnTo The Income Tax Officer,Company Ward-III (1)IV Floor, Room No.415, New Block,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai – 600 034. 1 CC to Dr.Anita Sumanth, Advocate SR.No. 50653 W.P. No.8604 of 2013PVR (CO)PSI (07.11.2014)