Double TDS refund claims must be verified and decided by a speaking order, with refund granted if entitlement is proved.

Where an assessee alleged double deposit of TDS under Section 194-IA and the claim remained pending for years, the HC directed the department to verify the refund request on production of the order copy and supporting documents. If entitlement was established, refund was to be granted within the stipulated time; if not, the authority had to reject the claim by a speaking order recording reasons. The petition was thus disposed of by requiring departmental examination of the double-payment claim and consequential refund on proof of eligibility.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for refund of the amount allegedly paid twice by way of TDS under Section 194-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the department was bound to verify the claim and pass a reasoned order.

Analysis: The record indicated that the same tax amount had been deposited twice in relation to a single transaction. The department did not dispute the need to examine the matter and stated that it would take a decision within a reasonable time. In view of the admitted delay in dealing with the petitioner's representations since 2014, the Court directed the respondent authority to verify the claim on production of the certified copy of the order and supporting documents. If entitlement was found, refund was to be made within the stipulated time, and if the claim was not accepted, reasons had to be recorded in a speaking order.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to a direction for consideration of the refund claim, with consequential refund if found eligible, and the authority was required to pass a reasoned order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by requiring departmental verification of the petitioner's double-payment claim and by mandating refund on proof of entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee alleges double deposit of tax and the claim has remained undecided for an unreasonable period, the authority must verify the claim and dispose of it by a speaking order, granting refund if entitlement is established.

---