Nafr v. Union Of India

-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPURWPT No. 84 of 2020 1. Ultratech Cement Limited, A company registered under the provisionof the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 'B'Wing, Ahura Centre, 2[nd] Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East)Mumbai – 400093 (Maharashtra) and a Cement plant/Unit at RawanCement Works Rawan, Pin – 493 198 Dist. Baloda Bazar, (C.G.)through its authorized representative.of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 'B'Wing, Ahura Centre, 2[nd] Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East)Mumbai – 400093 (Maharashtra) and a Cement plant/Unit at RawanCement Works Rawan, Pin – 493 198 Dist. Baloda Bazar, (C.G.)through its authorized representative. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Income TaxDepartment, North Block, New Delhi -110001Department, North Block, New Delhi -110001 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Government of India, Central RevenueBuilding, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 (C.G)Building, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 (C.G) 3. Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Government ofIndia, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur 492 001 (C.G)India, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur 492 001 (C.G) 4. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Geology& Mining, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur(C.G.)& Mining, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur(C.G.) 5. Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining, Indrawati Bhawan NayaRaipur, Raipur (C.G.)Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 6. Mining Officer, (Mining & Admn.) Collectorate Premises, MiningOffice, Baloda Bazar, District : Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara, (C.G)Office, Baloda Bazar, District : Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara, (C.G) 7. Dy. Director (Mining & Admin), Mining Office, District: Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ------ Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate. For State :Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Union of India : Ms. Poornima, Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18.09.2020 1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems tobe primarily the inaction on the part of the respondent-Statebe primarily the inaction on the part of the respondent-State particularly, the Mining Department in not considering the request ofthe petitioner's establishment for refund/adjustment of certain taxliability on the Mining Department towards Income Tax Departmentwhich has been discharged by the petitioner. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that they had received noticesfrom the Income Tax Department under the provisions of 226 (3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, based upon which subsequently, thepetitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,62,39,772/- to theIncome Tax Department. That the Income Tax Department in turnhas intimated the Mining Department in-respect-of the same videtheir correspondence dated 03.03.2020 Annexure P-8. from the Income Tax Department under the provisions of 226 (3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, based upon which subsequently, thepetitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,62,39,772/- to theIncome Tax Department. That the Income Tax Department in turnhas intimated the Mining Department in-respect-of the same videtheir correspondence dated 03.03.2020 Annexure P-8. 3. Since then, the petitioner has been making repeated representationsto the Mining Department for adjustment of the aforesaid amount orrefund of the said amount to the petitioner. However, till date nodecision has been taken by the respondents i.e., Mining Department.to the Mining Department for adjustment of the aforesaid amount orrefund of the said amount to the petitioner. However, till date nodecision has been taken by the respondents i.e., Mining Department. 3. Since then, the petitioner has been making repeated representationsto the Mining Department for adjustment of the aforesaid amount orrefund of the said amount to the petitioner. However, till date nodecision has been taken by the respondents i.e., Mining Department.to the Mining Department for adjustment of the aforesaid amount orrefund of the said amount to the petitioner. However, till date nodecision has been taken by the respondents i.e., Mining Department. 4. Given the said factual matrix of the case and the repeatedrepresentations of the petitioner pending before the respondents-State, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet,if the writ petition is disposed off at this juncture with a direction to theRespondents No. 4 to 7 to take a decision and communicate thesame to the petitioner within a period of sixty days from the date ofreceipt of copy of this Order.representations of the petitioner pending before the respondents-State, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet,if the writ petition is disposed off at this juncture with a direction to theRespondents No. 4 to 7 to take a decision and communicate thesame to the petitioner within a period of sixty days from the date ofreceipt of copy of this Order. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposedoff. off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy)JudgeJudge