This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 903-wp-2435-19-SM.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2435 OF 2019 Vodafone Idea Limited Petitioner. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, and ors. Respondents. Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Nitesh Joshi i/b Mr. Atul Jasani for Petitioner. Mr. N.C. Mohanty for Respondents. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 4, 2019. P.C. 1] This petition is fled for direction to respondents- Income Tax authorities to refund amount of Rs.224,28,74,090/- with statutory interest. This demand of petitioner has long history. It is not necessary to enter into fner details thereof, few undisputable facts may however be noted. 2] petitioner is public limited company and is engaged in providing telecommunication services. For Dinesh Sherla 1/6 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 09:54:25 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 903-wp-2435-19-SM.doc period relevant to assessment year 2015-16, petitioner had sufered sizable deduction of tax at source, at hands of payees, which was in excess of Rs.210/- crores. return fled by assessee for said assessment year 2015-16 was scrutinized under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short). assessment order dated 25.02.2019 gave rise to refund of said sum of Rs.224,28,74,090/-. 3] Since refund was not forthcoming, petitioner wrote several letters to department. At one stage, department had raised issue of pending demands for other assessment years. petitioner clarifed position in this respect under communication dated 05.03.2019, upon which, it appears that department did not pursue this line any further. 4] Few more letters from petitioner followed without department releasing refund. In one such e-mail correspondence dated 26.8.2019, petitioner pointed out that several meetings had taken place with Income Tax Dinesh Sherla 2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 09:54:25 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 903-wp-2435-19-SM.doc authority without resolution of issues. TDS mismatch of as small as Rs.1/- (on account of rounding of of fgure) was cited more than once for not releasing refund. Eventually, petitioner fled present petition for above noted prayer. 5] Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that assessment order gave rise to petitioner's claim for refund. There is no reason, no authority in law to withhold such refund. He submitted that at one stage department had raised ground of adjusting such refund against pending tax demands of other assessment years. However, petitioner had pointed out to authorities that all such demands are either reversed by appellate authority or tribunal or are stayed. In other words, none of these demands could be adjusted to petitioner s refund in question. 6] Learned Counsel Shri. N.C. Mohanty for department candidly stated that petitioner s refund claim has not been released on account of computer glitch at central processing center presumably on account of fact that Dinesh Sherla 3/6 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 09:54:25 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 903-wp-2435-19-SM.doc though concerned demands are stayed by appellate authority, system is not accepting such position. He, therefore, submitted that auto generation of refund could not be made because of this reason. 7] When material facts are not disputable, we do not see any reason why petitioner should not get refund which flows from order of assessment. department does not dispute that demands for other assessment years of petitioner are presently not enforceable. That being position, refund of petitioner arising out of order of assessment for said assessment year 2015-16, cannot be withheld, that too on ground of technical difculty of system not accepting such declaration of stay of demands and giving efect to such position . 8] computer system and auto generation or any difculty in doing so in particular case, cannot override correct legal position. In present case, correct legal position is that petitioner must receive refund. Whatever technical difculties in releasing refund, Dinesh Sherla 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 09:54:25 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 903-wp-2435-19-SM.doc department must sort it out. If for some reason of technical glitch system in present case fails to permit payment of refund, concerned authorized ofcer must manually do so. We, therefore, direct respondents to release petitioner s refund amount of Rs.224,28,74,090/- with statutory interest, which shall be done within period of two weeks from date of receipt of this order. 9] Before closing, we observe that this situation cannot be peculiar to petitioner alone. Surely, before department, there would be large number of cases of assessees where refund claim out of order of assessment or appellate order arises as against which same assessee may have demands for other assessment years, recovery of which, may have been suspended. In all such cases, similar difculty may be faced by department. We expect department to address this larger issue so that similar disputes do not have to travel to High Court for resolution. Dinesh Sherla 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 09:54:25 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 903-wp-2435-19-SM.doc 10] With these observations and directions, petition is disposed of. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) This order is corrected in pursuance to Speaking to Minutes of Order dated 14.10.2019. Dinesh Sherla 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 09:54:25 ::: Vodafone Idea Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and or