IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.24408 OF 2019(T-IT) BETWEEN: Avo Carbon Holdings LLC 2711, Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware-19808 United States of America. Represented by its Authorised representative, Mr.M.S.Manoj Aged 46 years, R/o No.99, 3rd West Street, Sri. Mehta Nagar, Andaankuppam, Kundratur, Chennai-600 069. Petitioner (By Sri.Nandakumar C.K, Advocate) AND : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC 1ST Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1, 48/2, Beratena Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Hosur Road, Bengaluru-560 100. Respondent (By Sri. Jeevan J.Neeralgi, Advocate) -2- This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to direct respondents to refund sum of `1,33,30,196/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six Only) along with interest issued by way of order dated 27.06.2017 passed by respondent for assessment years 2015-2016. This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, Court made following: ORDER petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of respondents in not refunding amount of Rs.1,33,30,196/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six Only) along with interest issued by way of order No.CPC/1516/U6/1707001462 dated 27.06.2017, relating to assessment year 2015-2016. 2. petitioner Company was incorporated and registered under Company Law of United States of America in state of Delaware, Wilmington. It transpires petitioner company has entered into -3- service agreement with AVO India and petitioner has been filing income tax returns reporting fees received from AVO India. AVO India deducted taxes [TDS] under provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short] before remitting service charges to company. It appears, relating to assessment year 2015-16, assessment concluded under Section 143 [1] of Act resulted in refund of Rs.1.2 Crores. 3. It transpires that petitioner company opened virtual bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank and Indian Financial System Code and details of which were furnished to respondent for refund purposes. 4. It appears that respondent had sought for documentary proof of bank account by way of cancelled cheque leaf for purpose of crediting TDS amount which facility was not available under -4- virtual account. representations made by petitioner claiming refund of tax amount has remained unconsidered. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that status in portal shows that refund is processed but withheld. For procedural infractions, petitioner company is facing harassment to avail refund of TDS. 6. On instructions, learned counsel for respondent Revenue submits that alternative arrangements are made to remit refund either through RTGS/NEFT or by issuing Cheque/Demand Draft to petitioner-company. 7. In view of aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of directing respondents to refund amount of Rs.1,33,30,196/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand One Hundred and -5- Ninety Six Only) to petitioner along with interest to which it is entitled to, in expedite manner. With aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Avo Carbon Holdings LLC v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangaluru