Misleading suppression of refund facts led to setting aside a writ order for double refund of tax deducted at source.

A writ order directing refund of tax deducted at source from land acquisition compensation was set aside because the same amount, with interest, had already been refunded in income-tax proceedings under Section 143(1) and Section 244A. The Court found that the writ petition was founded on incomplete and misleading facts and appeared to seek the same refund twice. As the alleged non-refund was factually incorrect, the relief based on exemption under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ order directing refund of tax deducted at source from land acquisition compensation could be sustained when the compensation amount had already been refunded in income-tax proceedings and the writ petition was founded on incorrect and misleading facts.

Analysis: The writ petitioner had sought refund of the tax deducted at source on compensation paid for acquisition of land and had also sought a declaration that such compensation was exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The appeal disclosed that the refund had already been processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the amount, including interest under Section 244-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been credited to the respondent's bank account long before the writ petition was filed and decided. The explanation that the refund was unknown to the respondent was rejected, and the Court inferred that the writ petition had been prosecuted on misleading and incomplete facts with an attempt to secure the same refund twice.

Conclusion: The writ order could not be sustained and was set aside. The appeal was allowed and costs were imposed on the respondent.

Final Conclusion: Relief based on alleged non-refund of tax deducted at source was declined because the same amount had already been refunded in income-tax proceedings, and the writ order obtained on misleading facts was annulled with consequential costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An order obtained on the basis of misleading or suppressed material facts, especially where it would result in a double refund of the same tax amount, is liable to be set aside and may justify the imposition of costs.

---