High Court allows refund in tax dispute despite Tribunal issue, emphasizes timely resolution.

The High Court allowed the appellant's writ petition for the refund of excess tax paid, despite the Tribunal's non-functionality. The Court held that withdrawal from the Tribunal was not necessary before pursuing the writ petition under Article 226. It directed the respondents to refund the excess tax amount with statutory interest, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution and justice in tax matters. The Court highlighted its jurisdiction under Article 226 and permitted the appellant to seek relief, rejecting the argument against maintaining parallel remedies before the Tribunal and High Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of excess tax paid by the appellant.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Maintaining parallel remedies before the Tribunal and High Court.

Issue 1: Refund of Excess Tax:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the refund of excess tax paid, as acknowledged by the department in Form-27. The Tribunal was approached by the appellant, but due to its non-functionality, the matter was not resolved. The High Court held that the appellant was entitled to approach under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court disagreed with the Single Bench's decision that withdrawal from the Tribunal was necessary before pursuing the writ petition, emphasizing the lack of functionality of the Tribunal and absence of a final decision. The Court directed the respondents to refund the excess tax amount with statutory interest from August 2016.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction under Article 226:
The High Court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allowing the appellant to seek relief for the refund of excess tax. The Court highlighted the inability of the Tribunal to function due to lack of quorum, providing a basis for the appellant to approach the High Court for redressal. The Court's decision emphasized the importance of ensuring justice and timely resolution for the appellant and similarly situated assessees.

Issue 3: Parallel Remedies Before Tribunal and High Court:
The Court addressed the concern of invoking parallel remedies by maintaining proceedings before the Tribunal and filing a writ petition simultaneously. The Single Bench's dismissal of the writ petition on this ground was overturned by the High Court, citing the Tribunal's non-functionality and lack of a final decision. The Court emphasized that the appellant could not withdraw proceedings before the non-functional Tribunal and that the refund process was independent of any alleged tax dues under other enactments. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the refund of the excess tax amount and statutory interest, while permitting the department to pursue any alleged tax dues separately in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of refunding excess tax, jurisdiction under Article 226, and the permissibility of maintaining parallel remedies before the Tribunal and High Court. The Court upheld the appellant's right to seek relief through the writ petition, emphasizing the department's duty to refund the excess tax amount with statutory interest. The decision provided clarity on the appellant's entitlement to approach the High Court due to the Tribunal's non-functionality and underscored the importance of timely resolution and justice in tax matters.

---