TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an adjustment of a tax refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid when made before the expiry of the time period expressly granted in the notice issued under Section 245(1).
2. Whether service of a notice under Section 245(1) by e-mail, in the circumstances shown on the record, constituted a valid notice for the purpose of triggering the 21-day response period.
3. Whether an assessing authority may lawfully adjust a refund under Section 245 after receipt of an appeal and pending adjudication by the appellate authority (and/or despite departmental instructions such as the CBDT memorandum limiting collection when demand is contested).
4. Whether adjustment of refund in the manner shown amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and/or statutory procedure, and what relief should follow (quashing of adjustment, refund, costs).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of adjustment made before the expiry of the period specified in the Section 245(1) notice
Legal framework: Section 245 of the Income Tax Act provides for adjustment of refunds against outstanding demands, and notices under Section 245(1) grant a period (here, 21 days) to the assessee to respond before such adjustment is made.
Precedent Treatment: No earlier judicial precedent was relied upon or invoked in the judgment for this specific factual question; the Court proceeded on statutory construction and recorded procedural facts.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the 21-day period specified in the notice as a procedural requirement that the authority itself set and was obliged to respect. The undisputed chronology showed issuance of notice on 15.10.2024 granting 21 days, while the adjustment order was passed on 05.11.2024 - before the lapse of 21 days. The Court inferred that the 3rd respondent acted prematurely and in haste, especially in light of the pending appeal, and therefore failed to respect the temporal safeguard created by its own notice.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that adjustment before expiry of the notice period is procedurally impermissible and therefore invalid is treated as ratio decidendi of the judgment.
Conclusion: Adjustment of the refund on 05.11.2024, made before the expiry of the 21-day period specified in the Section 245(1) notice, is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
Issue 2 - Validity of service of notice by e-mail
Legal framework: Valid service of notices under statutory provisions is a condition precedent to the exercise of powers consequential on such service; the record showed notice was issued by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) and sent to the assessee's e-mail account.
Precedent Treatment: The Court did not rely on or distinguish specific precedents regarding electronic service; the assessment turned on the Department's procedural compliance with its own notice timeline rather than on a challenge to the mode of service per se.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded that the notice was sent by e-mail to the assessee's address; the Department asserted service and reliance on the absence of any reply. However, the Court's primary concern was not contesting the fact of e-mail service but the premature exercise of adjustment notwithstanding the unexpired response period. The sufficiency of e-mail service was therefore not determinative of the outcome.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Observations on e-mail service are largely obiter to the extent they are incidental; the operative finding does not rest on invalidity of e-mail service but on non-compliance with the notice period.
Conclusion: Electronic service was recorded as made, but the Court's decision did not affirm or nullify the adequacy of e-mail service as an independent ground; the relief granted turned on premature adjustment rather than challenged mode of service.
Issue 3 - Effect of pendency of appeal and departmental instructions on the power to adjust refunds
Legal framework: Appeals pending before the appellate authority and administrative instructions (e.g., CBDT memorandum dated 31.07.2017 limiting collection to 20% of disputed demand when demand is contested) bear on the propriety and proportionality of recovery actions, although statutory powers to adjust refunds under Section 245 remain exercisable subject to statutory and administrative constraints.
Precedent Treatment: No judicial authorities were cited or applied to displace or limit the Department's power; the Court considered the departmental circular as relevant background and practice guidance.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that an appeal with a stay application was pending before the appellate authority prior to the impugned adjustment. The CPC adjusted the refund before waiting for the notice period to expire and while the appeal process was in progress. The Court treated the pendency of appellate proceedings and the departmental instructions as factors that made the hurried adjustment inappropriate and reinforced the conclusion that the Department should not have adjusted the refund at that stage.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The proposition that adjustments should be sensitive to pending appeals and administrative instructions informed the Court's reasoning and supports the operative relief; it is part of the core ratio insofar as it underpinned the finding of procedural impropriety.
Conclusion: Adjustment while an appeal was pending (and contrary to the spirit of departmental guidance limiting aggressive collection where demands are contested) was improper; the adjustment was quashed.
Issue 4 - Violation of principles of natural justice and appropriate relief
Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that a statutory notice granting an opportunity to be heard be respected and that adverse action not be taken without affording the time and opportunity promised. Remedies for breach include quashing of the impugned action and restitution (refund).
Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on statutory procedure and natural justice norms as applied to the facts; no contrary judicial authority was invoked.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Department's own notice granted 21 days to respond; adjusting the refund before expiry deprived the assessee of that opportunity and therefore violated principles of natural justice. The Court rejected the Department's contention that there was no procedural lapse, holding instead that the premature adjustment was a gross error. Given the illegal adjustment, the Court ordered quashing of the adjustment order and directed refund of the amount.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The determination that premature adjustment violated natural justice and warranted quashing and refund is central to the judgment and constitutes ratio decidendi.
Conclusion: The impugned adjustment order was quashed for violation of statutory procedure and natural justice; the Department was directed to refund the tax forthwith. No order as to costs was made.
Cross-references and ancillary findings
1. The Court's principal finding (see Issue 1 & Issue 4) is that non-observance of the temporal period specified in the Section 245(1) notice renders the adjustment order invalid; the pendency of appeal and departmental guidance (see Issue 3) reinforced the impropriety.
2. The Court did not base its relief on any finding of coercive collection; it accepted the Department's submission that there were no coercive measures and framed its order on procedural non-compliance and natural justice.
3. Relief ordered: set aside the adjustment order dated 05.11.2024, quash related proceedings, direct refund forthwith, allow writ petition, and make no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
