Court denies mandamus for refund disputes, directs petitioner to statutory remedies under Income Tax Act

The Court declined to issue a mandamus regarding refund disputes for AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act for errors in refund calculation. The petitioner was directed to pursue departmental/statutory remedies provided by law rather than seeking relief through a writ petition. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and mechanisms, ultimately disposing of the petition and allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies under the law for any refund calculation grievances.

---

---

Issues:
Seeking directions for refunds for AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, dispute over refund calculation, availability of remedies for errors in refund calculation.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking refunds for AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, along with interest, due to the late husband. The respondents filed a counter affidavit detailing the amounts adjusted and refunds credited to the petitioner's account. The Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue stated that refunds for both years had been paid to the legal heir and credited to the petitioner's account, supported by System Generated Screenshots. She explained the computation and appeal effect orders for both years, asserting that no further amount was due as refunds with interest had been granted under section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's counsel disputed this, claiming that the refunds were only partly paid, and errors in calculation were ignored. The petitioner had also submitted a representation to rectify the errors.

The Court inquired about remedies for errors in refund calculation under the Act, to which the petitioner's counsel could not provide specific provisions and suggested that remedies lie before the Court. The Court declined to issue a mandamus due to the factual dispute on refund computation. Emphasizing that the Income Tax Act provides a mechanism to challenge Revenue authorities' orders, the Court held that the petitioner should pursue departmental/statutory remedies available in law regarding any refund calculation grievances. The Court highlighted that its jurisdiction under Article 226 does not allow disregarding statutory provisions and mechanisms provided under the Act. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue remedies available under the law for any refund calculation disputes.

---