Court Rules No Interest Due on Delayed Deposit, Emphasizing Contractual Nature; Seek Compensation Elsewhere.

The HC disposed of the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner's request for interest under Section 244 A was inapplicable, as this section pertains to delayed refunds by the Department, not private entities. The Court deemed the initial prayer moot due to the respondent's deposit of the deducted amount. It clarified that the petitioner could pursue compensation for losses from the delayed deposit in an appropriate forum. The judgment emphasized the contractual nature of the issue between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, dismissing the claim for interest due to the absence of grounds for such a writ.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-deposit of deducted amount by respondent No. 2.
2. Incorrect PAN number in Form 16A.
3. Petitioner seeking mandamus for corrections and interest.
4. Deposit of the deducted amount during proceedings.
5. Entitlement of petitioner to interest under Section 244 A.
6. Applicability of Section 244 A to the present case.
7. Disposal of the writ petition and potential claim for compensation.

Analysis:

The petitioner, engaged in construction and development works, alleged that respondent No. 2 failed to deposit an amount of Rs. 71,85,065 deducted from bills for three financial years. The petitioner sought a mandamus to correct the PAN number and deposit the amount, along with interest under Section 244 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent deposited Rs. 71,83,788, claiming the shortfall was due to a departmental error of Rs. 1,277. The Court noted the deposit and ruled the first prayer of the writ petition moot.

Regarding interest under Section 244 A, the Court found the petitioner only notified the incorrect PAN number in 2019 and lacked evidence to prove entitlement to refunds if the amounts were deposited timely. The Court held Section 244 A inapplicable as it pertains to delayed refunds by the Department, not deposit delays by private entities. Consequently, the Court denied the petitioner's claim for interest under Section 244 A, citing the absence of grounds for issuance of such a writ.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the ruling does not prevent the petitioner from seeking compensation in an appropriate forum for any losses due to the delayed tax deposit. The judgment emphasized the lack of grounds for interest payment under Section 244 A and highlighted the private contractual nature of the deposit delay issue between the petitioner and respondent No. 2.

---