Court denies mandamus for TDS refund during pending assessment, stresses completion of scrutiny assessment before refund claims.

The Court declined to issue a mandamus for refund of TDS during pending scrutiny assessment, directing the petitioner to complete the assessment first. Emphasizing adherence to legal procedures, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to approach the authority during assessment. Interest on refund was assured to be paid as per law. The judgment underscored the necessity of completing scrutiny assessment before addressing refund claims, safeguarding the petitioner's rights and ensuring compliance with legal requirements.

---

---

Issues:
Seeking refund of TDS, maintainability of the petition during scrutiny assessment, reliance on Bombay High Court judgment, jurisdiction of the Court to issue mandamus for refund, direction to complete scrutiny assessment before considering refund, payment of interest on refund, disposal of writ petition with liberty to approach authority during scrutiny assessment.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a refund of TDS amounting to Rs. 54,04,14,180. The petitioner contended that the refund for the year 2016-17 was not being granted. Reference was made to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Group M. Media India (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the petition due to the pending scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued against this objection, citing the Bombay High Court judgment.

The Court observed that since the matter was pending scrutiny assessment, no mandamus could be issued at that stage. The petitioner was directed to approach the competent authority, furnish all required information, and complete the scrutiny assessment process. It was emphasized that the question of refund would be considered in accordance with the law after the scrutiny assessment was completed. The petitioner assured the Court that interest on the refund would be paid as per the law to prevent any monetary loss.

Considering all circumstances, the Court declined to interfere in the matter at that stage and disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the authority during the pending scrutiny assessment process. The judgment highlighted the importance of completing the scrutiny assessment before addressing the refund issue, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and protecting the petitioner's interests.

---