Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/29786/2018 Of Bharat Varma v. Depu...

Wp(C)/29786/2018 Of Bharat Varma v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-Cpc

High Court 11 Sep 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/29786/2018 Of Bharat Varma v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-Cpc
Date of order
11 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/29786/2018 Of Bharat Varma v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-Cpc, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 29786 of 2018 PETITIONERS: 1BHARAT VARMAAGED 69 YEARS 'SUBHA', RAGHAVAPARAMBU, ELAMANA ROAD, THRIPUNITHARA, ERNAKULAM - 682301 2SHARAT BHARAT VARMA'SUBHA', RAGHAVAPARAMBU, ELAMANA ROAD, THRIPUNITHARA, ERNAKULAM - 682301 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 1ST PETITIONER SRI. BHARAT VARMA, 'SUBHA', RAGHAVAPARAMBU, ELAMANA ROAD, THRIPUNITHARA, ERNAKULAM - 682301 BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJSRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPCBANGALORE 560001 2ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERINCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), NON CORP, 3RD FLOOR C R BUILDING I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682018 INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), NON CORP, 3RD FLOOR C R OTHER PRESENT: SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased assessee. As thedeceased assessee was entitled to refund under the Income Tax Act, theDepartment drew cheques and sent them to the assessee, by then deceased. The legal heirs returned the cheques to the Department, requesting for therefund vouchers in their names. They also seem to have produced the LegalHeirship Certificate, as the Department desired. 2. But the Department did not upload the confirmation of Legal Heirship Certificate, electronically. Therefore, complaining about thedelay in their getting the refund, the petitioners, the legal heirs, have filedthis Writ Petition. 3. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Standing Counsel assures that the Department will explore theoptions to rely on the physical copy of the document and process thepetitioners' request for refund. Recording this submission, I dispose of the Writ Petition. I reckon thatgiven the delay that has already taken place, the Department may act expeditiously. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD
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