Case LawHigh Court › Wp/16908/2022 Of Mobis India Limited v....

Wp/16908/2022 Of Mobis India Limited v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax Cpc

High Court 23 Feb 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Wp/16908/2022 Of Mobis India Limited v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax Cpc
Date of order
23 Feb 2023
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp/16908/2022 Of Mobis India Limited v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax Cpc, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Decision: The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF FEBRUARY,2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.16908 OF 2022(T-RES) BETWEEN: MOBIS INDIA LIMITED A REG. UNDER COMPANIES 1956 ACT G-1 SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL PARK IRUNGATTUKOTAI SRIPERUMBUDRU TALUK KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT TAMIL NADU -602 117 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. BYUNG KYU KIM DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEENARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC 1 FLOOR, PRESTIGE ALPHA NO.48/1 48/2 BERATENA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU -560 100 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND A SUM OF RS.37,53,71,190(RUPEES THIRTY SEVEN CRORES FIFTY THREE LAKSH SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY ONLY) ALONG WITH INTEREST ISSUED BY WAY OF AN ORDER BARING REFERENCE NO.CPC/2021/A6/190600551 DATED 29.12.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2020.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has filed this petitioner for a direction to the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.37,53,71,190/- along with interest. While Sri.Veeraraghavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is constrained to file this petition because the order dated 29.12.2021 has not been implemented, Sri Dilip M., the learned standing counsel for the respondent, submits that it is not implemented because the case was selected for scrutiny but his present instructions are that a decision for refund is taken and necessary amounts could be credited to the petitioner’s account within seven working days from today. It is obvious from these submissions that the petition is rendered infructuous and must be disposed of taking on record the statement made on behalf of the respondent for due compliance. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- JUDGE SA ct:sr
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan