2000 PLP 2978 (PTD)
BAGRI FOUNDATION Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2978 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 235 I T R 99 |
| Bench Members | R. C. Lahoti and C. K. Mahajan, JJ |
| Parties | BAGRI FOUNDATION Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2978 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2978 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 235 I T R 99 bench comprising: R. C. Lahoti and C. K. Mahajan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2978 (PTD) (BAGRI FOUNDATION Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.C. Jain for Petitioner.
- R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Respondents
Headnotes / Summary
Interest paid is not an adequate compensation
Costs awarded to petitioner
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961
Constitution of India, Art.226. Interest is now a statutory obligation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It compensates the person concerned for delay in refund but does not compensate him for the expenses incurred in coming to the Court. In various cases it comes to the notice of the Court that writ jurisdiction of the Court is required to be invoked solely because of the callousness on the part of the staff entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with files in which refunds are to be made: Held, that the present one was a fit case where the petitioner must be allowed costs. [The respondents were directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000 to the petitioner.]
Judgment & Decree
K.C. Jain for Petitioner. R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Respondents The petitioner filed this petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to issue refund vouchers for the amount of tax which was liable to be refunded to the petitioner and for which there was no dispute. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay interest, which is statutorily liable to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. During the pendency of this petition and after notice of the petition being served on the respondents, the requisite refund voucher has been issued and the main grievance, therefore, stands satisfied. However, the petitioner has passed for the costs of the petition being allowed to the petitioner inasmuch as the respondents failed to carry out their statutory obligation and the petitioner was driven to the necessity of filing this petition. We cannot resist observing that in various cases it comes to the notice of the Court that writ jurisdiction of this Court is required to be invoked solely because of the callousness on the part of the staff entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with files in which refunds are to be made. In our opinion, the present one is a fit case where the petitioner must be allowed costs. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as the tax has been refunded alongwith interest the costs may not be awarded. We are not impressed. Interest is now a statutory obligation under the Income-tax Act. It compensates the petitioner for delay in refund but does not compensate the petitioner for the expenses incurred in coming to the Court. The petition be treated as disposed of as the principal grievance of the petitioner has been satisfied. However, the respondents are directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000 to the petitioner. The respondents would be at liberty to fix the responsibility on the official who has been responsible for the delay and recover the costs from him, if so advised. The petition is disposed of. Dasti to counsel for the respondents. M.B.A./4057/FC Petition disposed of.