Wp/19273/2023 Of Cisco Systmes International B V v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.19273 OF 2023(T-IT) BETWEEN: CISCO SYSTMES INTERNATIONAL B V HAARLERBERGWERG, 13-19, 11001 CH AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS (C/O ERNST AND YOUNG LLP 1ST FLOOR, A WING, DIVYASREE CHAMBERS, O SHAUGHNESSY ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027) REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SRIHARI VARANASIM, SENIOR MANAGER TAX SENIOR MANAGER TAX OF AFFILIATE ENTITY- CISCO SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT FLAT 8173, SOBHA FOREST VIEW APARTMENT, VAJARAHALLI MAIN RD, OFF KANAKAPURA RD, BENGALURU-560062 KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESWAR RAO .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE -1(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT RAOD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560095. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095. 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) (SOUTH ZONE) C R BUILDING , NO 1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 56001. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) (SOUTH ZONE) C R BUILDING , NO 1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 56001. 4. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI 110001. NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI 110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGC FOR R4) SRI. VINAY VENUGOPAL, CGC FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO PROCESS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2013-14 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND FORTHWITH ISSUE REFUND OF RS. 49,58,98,210/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST TILL DATE OF PAYMENT OF REFUND INTO PETITIONERS BANK ACCOUNT AS LAWFULLY DUE TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is filed for the following relief: “Issue appropriate writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents to process return of income for Y 2013-14 (vide Annexure-A) and forthwith issue refund of Rs.49,58,98,210/- together with interest till date of payment of refund into Petitioner’s bank account as lawfully due to the petitioner.” Sri Nageswar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M. Dilip, the learned Standing Counsel for the first to third respondents, are heard for final disposal of this petition in the light of this Court’s order dated 16.08.2023 in W.P.No.7827/2023. 2.If the present petition is for the assessment year 2013-14, the petition in W.P.No.7827/2023 is for the assessment year 2010-11 and the prayer in both these petitions are the same. This Court has disposed of the petition in W.P.No.7827/2023 taking on record the submissions by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner’s request for processing returns for the assessment year 2010-11 would be considered and a decision taken. This Court has allowed eight weeks for such decision observing that all contentions are kept open and the respondents could call for any further information/documents as may be required from the petitioner. Further this Court has observed that the consideration shall not be delayed beyond eight weeks in the guise of securing such information or seeking reliefs. 2.If the present petition is for the assessment year 2013-14, the petition in W.P.No.7827/2023 is for the assessment year 2010-11 and the prayer in both these petitions are the same. This Court has disposed of the petition in W.P.No.7827/2023 taking on record the submissions by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner’s request for processing returns for the assessment year 2010-11 would be considered and a decision taken. This Court has allowed eight weeks for such decision observing that all contentions are kept open and the respondents could call for any further information/documents as may be required from the petitioner. Further this Court has observed that the consideration shall not be delayed beyond eight weeks in the guise of securing such information or seeking reliefs. 3.Sri Nageswar Rao submits that the petitioner has filed Income Tax Returns on 20.10.2015 for the present assessment year (2013-14) on receipt of the Communication dated 25.03.2015 from the Compliance Management Cell, Income Tax Department. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner will be entitled for refund in terms of the returns so filed but no action is taken to process a request for returns; that insofar as the assessment year 2010-11 and the later assessment - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35378 years as well, the Tribunal, in very similar circumstances, has allowed refund. 4.Sri M. Dilip submits that unlike for the assessment year now relied upon, the returns for the subject assessment year [2013-14] is filed manually but it will not be valid, and he also canvasses that unless the returns are valid with necessary orders on condonation of delay, the request for process of returns cannot be considered. Sri M.Dilip further submits that the learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.7827/2023 could not bring forth these circumstances for consideration by this Court or the CBTD’s Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 that will be relevant. 5.In rejoinder, Sri Nageswar Rao submits that the petitioner’s cause for the petition is because no decision is taken though returns are filed in the month of March 2015 and the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for directions to the respondents to process the request so that the respondents, if they do not consider the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to justify the refund, can pursue remedy as otherwise available in law. 6.The rival submissions are considered, and the significant fact that remains undisputed is that the petitioner’s returns is not processed, and therefore, the question of refund. Presently, a set of circumstances are being offered to contend that the petitioner may not be entitled for refund, but it cannot be gainsaid that unless the petitioner’s return is processed and a decision taken by a reasoned order, the petitioner would be justified in approaching this Court for a direction as now sought for. Hence, the petition must be favored and disposed of with a direction which would be similar to the directions issued in W.P.No.7827/2023, and as such, the following: ORDER The writ petition is allowed-in-part directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request to process returns of income filed for the assessment year 2013-14 and for consequential order on refund, if any. The respondents must so process and consider, and communicate the outcome of such consideration to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. It would be needless to observe that all contentions are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE SA ct:sr