Banking company can seek tax refund without limits, court asserts independence in tax law interpretation.

The Court allowed the petitioner, a banking company, to seek a refund from the Central Board of Direct Taxes without limitations, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in tax matters. The Court held that the circular issued by the tax authorities is binding but not on the constitutional court, asserting its authority to interpret tax laws independently. The petitioner was directed to approach the Central Board of Direct Taxes for resolution, subject to the outcome of pending departmental appeals, with no interest payable by the department in this instance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Income Tax Act regarding fringe benefit tax on contribution to statutory pension fund.
2. Maintainability of the revision petition under Section 264 of the Act.
3. Application of Circular 9/2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on refund claims.
4. Jurisdiction of the first respondent in entertaining refund claims exceeding a specified amount.
5. Constitutional mandate of fairness and reasonableness in tax matters.
6. Binding nature of circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on tax authorities.
7. Consideration of equitable principles in tax matters.
8. Authority of a constitutional court in interpreting tax laws.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a banking company, challenged an adverse order regarding fringe benefit tax on the contribution to a statutory pension fund. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the contribution outside the ambit of FBT. The department challenged this decision, leading to subsequent refund claims and legal proceedings.

2. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act after realizing an erroneous payment of FBT for the year 2007-08. The Principal Commissioner rejected the petition as not maintainable, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition, which was initially allowed by the Court, remitting the matter for fresh orders.

3. The impugned order dated 07.08.2019 was based on Circular 9/2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which sets guidelines for condonation of delay in filing refund claims. The circular limits the authority of tax officials based on the claimed amount and time frame for refund applications.

4. The Court acknowledged the binding nature of the circular on the first respondent but emphasized the constitutional mandate of fairness and reasonableness in tax matters. While recognizing the limitations imposed by the circular, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an application before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for refund, irrespective of the limitation, due to the absence of current tax liability.

5. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding fairness and reasonableness in tax matters, stressing that the department should refund amounts paid without legal liability. It differentiated between tax liability and the lawfulness of retaining payments, emphasizing the need for equitable considerations in such cases.

6. The Court clarified that while circulars issued by tax authorities are binding on officials, a constitutional court is not bound by them. It asserted its authority to interpret tax laws independently and directed the petitioner to approach the Central Board of Direct Taxes for resolution, subject to the outcome of pending departmental appeals.

7. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek a refund from the Central Board of Direct Taxes without limitations, contingent upon the resolution of the pending departmental appeal. It clarified that no interest would be payable by the department in this scenario.

---