WP497_20.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2020 Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.) Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC and others Respondents Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Nitesh Joshi and Mr. Atul Jasani for Petitioner. Mr. Sham Walve for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent No.6. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN, MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : MARCH 06, 2020 P.C. : Heard Mr. Mistri, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for petitioner. Also heard Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. On 14.02.2020, we had passed following order: "1. Heard Mr. J. D. Mistri, learned senior counsel for petitioner. None appears for respondents, despite been served by petitioner. 2. Issue notice. 3. Petitioner to serve respondents afresh and file affidavit of service. 4. On next date, respondent No.2 shall inform Court about compliance of order dated 04.10.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2435 of 2019; failing which Court may consider passing appropriate order against defaulting respondents." 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2020 08:59:53 ::: WP497_20.doc 3. Today when matter is called upon, Mr. Mistri has placed before us copy of letter dated 20.02.2020 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(2), Mumbai addressed to Principal Officer of petitioner. Along with said letter, cheque for amount of Rs.218,10,22,063.00 covering income tax refund including interest in case of petitioner as determined by office of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(2), Mumbai under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide its order dated 16.12.2019 to give effect to order of this Court dated 04.10.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.2435 of 2019, was enclosed. 4. Without expressing any opinion on contentions raised in writ petition, we feel that following payment of aforesaid amount continuing with matter will not serve any useful purpose. 5. However, if petitioner has any further grievance pertaining to aforesaid refund, it is open to petitioner to pursue its legal remedies in accordance with law. 6. Subject to observations made above, writ petition is disposed of. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2020 08:59:53 ::: Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC and other