Facts
The case of the Petitioner Company is that the Respondents forcefully realised Rs. 7,86,33,649/- from the Petitioner in the guise of Tax Collected as Source for the period FY 2012-2013 to the First Quarter of FY 2017-2018.
Submissions
Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the benefit of Section 206C(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ought to have been granted to the Petitioner once Form 27C has been submitted by the Petitioner and there exists no material to conclude that the declaration forming part of such Form is false.
Decision
The division bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that it was clarified by the Respondent-CCL that the interest component of Rs. 1,60,75,330/- was not lying with the said Respondents but is lying with Respondents No. 3 to 5 (Revenue). It was further stated that the said Respondents had no objection if this Court directs Respondents No. 3 to 5 (Revenue) to directly refund the interest component to the Petitioner.
The bench noted that the root cause of the present Lis lies in the illegality committed by the Revenue in compelling Respondent No. 1 and 2 (CCL) in effecting TCS qua the transactions of purchase of coal which according to the Petitioner was genuinely used in generation of power. Such TCS was affected by Respondent No. 1 and 2 (CCL) even though appropriate Form 27C was issued by the Petitioner with a verification that the goods so purchased would be used for the purposes of generation of power.
The bench directed that the entire sums of money collected as TCS from the Petitioner along with interest thereon, i.e., Rs. 6,25,58,318.89/- (towards TCS) plus Rs. 1,60,75,329.93/- (towards interest), amounting in toto to Rs. 7,86,33,649/-, be refunded by Respondents 3 to 5 (Revenue) to Respondents No. 1 and 2 (CCL) who should thereafter forthwith refund the same to the Petitioner in a time-bound manner.
It was clarified by the court that Appeal under 260A is a statutory right and it cannot prevent anyone, either Assessee or Revenue from availing such right. As such the said plea of Respondent CCL is misconceived and hence rejected.
Case title: Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd v/s Central Coalfields Limited
Citation: W.P. (T) No. 2023 of 2021
