WP/28552/2025 of Mantena Vasishta Micro JV Vs Union of India on 25 June 2026

1. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Rep by Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Having office at cF2F + J8F, LB stadium Rd, Band colony, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004

2. The lncome Tax officer, ward 8 (1) Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in refusing to refund the excess lncome Tax of Rs. 5,26,12,0821for the Assessment Year 2O2O-21to the Petitioner (PAN AAHAP34 27E), as intimated by the DIN and Letter No ITBA/COM|F|17|2025- 26110766740018(1) dated 0510612025 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the excess tax collected by them at Rs 5,26,12,082 /- or such other sum found collected along with interest as per law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay 50% of the excess tax collected from the petitioner (PAN AAHAP3427E), for the Assessment year 2020-21, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. J.SUNITHA, Sr. SC FOR !T WP NO: 28552 OF 2025 Between: Mantena Vasishta Micro JV, A Partnership Firm having its office At 2-56-331124, Mantena House, Khanamet, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081, Represented by its Director/Authorised signatory Mr. M. Srinivas Raju S/o Nagendra Raju. ...PETITIONER AND

1. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Rep by Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Having office al CF2F + J8F, LB Stadium Rd, Band Colony, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004.

2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward I (1) Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Hyderabad ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the Omission of the Respondents in refunding the excess TDS collected from the Petitioner, in (PAN AAJAM5618C), for the Assessment year 2020-21 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the excess tax collected by them at Rs 8,25,01 ,1291- or such other sum along with interest as per law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay 50% of the excess tax collected from the petitioner (PAN AAJAM5618C), for the Assessment year 2020-21, pending disposal of the writ petition. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.SEETHARAMA AVADHAN! Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. J.SUNITHA, Sr. SC FOR lT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION Nos.38097 &28552 of2025 DATE:25.06.2026 Between: PEL PARBATI JV. ...Petitioner AND Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Having office at CF2+J8F, LB Stadium Rd, Band Colony, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 and Another. ...Respondents COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon'ble $t Justice P.San Koslly) Heard Mr. V.Seetharama Avadhani, and Mr. K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners; and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department.

2. Since the issue involved in the instant Writ Petitions is one and the same and the parties also being the same' they are heard together anduedecided by this Common Order'

3. For convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No'38097 of 2025 are discussed hereunder'

4. The instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been frled by the petitioner challenging the action of respondent No'2 in refusing to refund the excess income tax of Rs.5,26,12,0821- paid for the assessment year 2020-21vide Letter No' MJFI|7t2025-26t|0766740018(1)dated05'06.2025andto declare it as illegal' arbitrary and capricious and further direct them to refund the amount of Rs'5'26'12'0824 with interest'

5. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Association of Persons (AOP) formed by Patel Engineering Limited and HES Infra private Limited for executing the parbati pipe Network canal System Multipurpose Project in Madhya Pradesh and was statutorily required to file its retum of income for the assessment yezt 2020'21 ot or before 15.02'2021, which was extended by the Central Board of

Direct Taxes (for short 'CBDT') because of COVID-19. However, the petitioner failed to frle its retum of income by the due date of 15.02.2021, due to a search being conducted at the premises of HES Infra Private Limited (constituent partner) during the material time, 09.02.2021 to 12.02.2021, due to a prohibitory order which was placed on the premises which remained till 10.04.2021. Due to the search and prohibitory order, documents were seized and hence, the petitioner could not file the retum. After lifting the prohibitory order on 10.04.2021, the petitioner attempted to file the return, but the return filing window had closed.

6. '[he Department, acting on information flagged under the RMS (Risk Management Strategy) as Non-Filer pAN cases, identified that the petitioner had substantial financial transactions despite non_filing and in the absence of any return filed by the petitioner, such income would constitute escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ,Act') after which in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the petitioner filed its retum of income on 26.06.2024 declaring the following figures:-

I ) Total sales (as per business records) : Rs'2'50'02'27 '8631-

2) Business loss : Rs'30'853/-

3) Amount claimed as refund of TDS : Rs'5'26'12'082/- Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a rectification application before respondent No.2 under Section 154 of the Act claiming a refund of Rs.5,26,12,0821" Howevet' respondent No'2 refused the same, leading to filing of the instant Writ Petition'

7. Leurrcdcounsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have no statutory power to withhold or deny the excess tax paid by the petitioner. Further, Section 237 ofthe Act states that refund shall be made immediately after the completion of assessment by the Assessingofficerandalsoifthereisanyexcesstaxpaidbythe assessee. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further shred light on the fact that the petitioner was unable to retrieve the necessary documents to file returns for t]1e assessment year 2020-21, due to the search and seizure operation being conducted on its Joint venture Partner's premiseswhichlastedfrom09.02.202|to|2.02.2021andthata prohibitory order was placed on the premises of the said partner's premises preventing the petitioner from discharging his statutory obligations.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the action of respondent No.2 of withholding a huge amount of Pts.5,26,12,082/- is causing great monetary crisis to the petitioner and preventing the petitioner from incurring its regular expenditures for various project works and withholding and refusing to refund the excess tax paid by the petitioner without justification is unlawful, arbitrary and contrary to ethical rules of the authorities.

9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in refusing the refund ofhuge sum ofadvanced tax paid by the petitioner as TDS is illegal, unconstitutional and a grave violation of principles ofnatural justice and violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner from conducting its business by utilising its funds / monies and they are left with no altemative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Au Contraire, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department vehemently opposed the Writ Petition on the following grounds:-

a) The petitioner had ample amount of time and opportunity to appeal under Section 246A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act, for their grievance of refund. Thus, when petitioner failed in exercising his right to statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act, the same cannot be cured by way of invoking this writ jurisdiction before this Hon'ble Court.

b) The legislative purpose behind Section 147 of the Act is to garnish the escaped income from an assessee, which is predominantly for the benefit of the Revenue Department and is not of regular assessment in nature. Further, refund under Section 239 of the Act pre-mandates that every claim of refund should be made only by furnishing retums in accordance with the provisions of Section 139 of the Act.

c) The search and prohibitory orders issued against the JV partner only pertained to restriction on physical removal of files / documents from the area of search and that the petitioner made no attempt to the Department through any official means to retrieve the said files for perusal and discharge of their obligations. ll. At the outset, since the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the remedies available to him under the Income Tax Act, we would first decide the maintainabiliry / entertainability of the Writ Petition and thereafter, if necessary, venture into the merits of the case.

12. The impugned order under challenge in this Writ petition was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 144B ofthe Act and it ought to have been appealed under 2464 ofthe Act belbre the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by the petitioner for remedy, which was not done within the stipulated time frame provided under the Act.

13. Prima facie the petitioner has not approached the statutory appellate authority under the Income Tax Act for the remedies which are readily available to him. Had he availed the statutory remedies under the due procedure of taxation appellate hierarchy, he could have been granted the appropriate relief which he is presently praying before this Court.

14. With regard to maintainability I entertainability of a Writ Petition when an altemative efficacious remedy already exists, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.l had held as under: "74.1n the backdrop of these facts, the central question is: Whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition /iled by the respondent? As regards the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even thoueh the High Court can entertain a writ oetition asainst anv order or direction oassed/action taken bv the State under Article 226 of the Constitution. it ousht not to do so as a matter of course when the agsrieved oerson could have availed of an effective alternative remedv in the manner orescribed bv law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antorim Zila Parishad [Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 ,SC 5561 and also Nivedita ' (zozo) 19 scc 581 : (2020) 77 GsrR 342:2020 scc onLine sc 440

,gharma v. COAI [Nivedita Shorma v. COAI, (201]) 14 SCC 337 : O012) 4 SCC' (t.:ir,) 9471). ln Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt of Taxes [Thansingh ,Yathmal v. Supt. oJ Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419], the Constitution Rench of this Court made clear that althoush the nowor of the Hish Court under A icle 226 of the restraint and enle ain the writ oetition. an alternative to In para 7, the Llourt observed thus: Q'hansingh Nathmal case tThansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of T(aes, AIR 1964 SC lal9l , AlRp. laB) "7. Againsl the order oJ the Commissioner an order for reference coultl have been claimed iJ the appellants satisJied the C'ommissioner or the High Court that a question of law arose out oJ'the order. But the procedure provided by the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypussed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging lhe competence oJ the Provincial l,egislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction ol rhe High Court under Article 226 and .sought to reopen the decision of the taxing authorities on question offacr. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of tha Constitttlion is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereoJ'is not subject to any restrictions except the territofial restriclions which are expressly provided in the Articlcs. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude ol lhe .jurisdiction demands lhdt it will ordinurily be exercised subjecl to certain seU-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not inlended as an alternalive remedl, .[or relieJ which may he obtained in a suil or olher motle prescribed by statule. Ordinarilv the $a Page l0 ofl5 Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article without beine undulv oneroas, orovides on eouallv efficacious remedv. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal agatnst the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of .fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief, Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another .iurisdictionfor obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up."

15. We may usefully refer to the exposition of this Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [Titaghur Paper Mitls Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (fax) 131J , wherein it is observed that where a rieht or liabilitv is the remedv provided bv that statute must onlv be availed of. In para I 1, the Court observed thus : (SCC pp. 440-41) " l L (Jnder the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complatned of The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the

Prescribed Authority under sub-section (l) of Section 23 of the Act. If the pefitioners are clissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and then ask _fbr o co.te to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion o/ the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to prescrtOea Ov *e l , that statute onlv must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by LYilles, J. in Wolverhampton New Ll/aterworks Co. v. Hawkesford [Wolverhampton New li/arerworks Co. v. Hawkesford, (1559) 6 CBNS 336, 356 : 141 ER 486J in the.following passoge: 'There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon stotute. ... But there is a third clas,s viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a stotute which at the same time gives o special and particular remedy for enforcing it.... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course opplicable to coses of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted qnd adhered to.' The rule laid down in this passage wos opproved by the Ilouse o.f Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper Lrd. [Nevillev. London Express Newspaper Ltd., rglg AC 36s

(HL)l and has been reaffrmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago v' Gordon Grant & Co' Ltd. [Attorney Generat of Trinidad' & Tobago v' Gordon Grant & Co. Ltd., 1%5 AC 532 (PC)l andSecy' of Statev'Mask & Co. [Secy. of Statev' Mask & Co'' 1940 SCC Online PC ]0 : AIR ]g40PCl05Jlthasalsobeenheldtobeequallyapplicableto enforcement of rights' and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in linine' (emphasis supplied) In the subsequent decision in Mafatlat Industries Ltd' v' Union of India [Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536J, this Court went on tu observe that an Act cannot bar and curtail remedY under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution' The Court, however, added a word of caution and expounded that the Constitutional Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the Provisions of the Act and would exercise its j uri s di ct io n c o ns is tu rtt with the provisions of the enactment' To put statuta."

15. Further, in the case ofCIT vs' Chhabil Dass Agarwal2 it was held that where an efftcacious and prescribed form of appellate hierarchy is provided under a statute' writ Courts should avoid entertaining cases by invoking their writ jurisdictions' The relevant 'eot+l l scc 603

Page l3 of I 5 paragraphs of the said judgment for ready reference are reproduced hereunder: " 16. n A 191!!9[ ]n Ram and Shyam Co. v. State oJ Haryana [(19g5) 3 SCC 267J this Court hcrs noticed that if an appeal is fi.om ,,(,aesar to C.laesar,s v,ife " the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage anct an exercise infulitity.

17. In the instont cu,re, neither has lhe writ petitioner assessee described the avuilable alterndte remedy under the Act as ineffectual ttnd non_fficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction oJ the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and salisfoclory rea.tons to have exercised ils jurisdiction in the./itcts of the instant cctst,. In light of the some, we are of the considered opinion that rhe wril court ought not t. have enterrained lhe writ perition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued untler Section l4g of the Act, the reus;ressment ot demancr notites i.\sued thereo::rs passed and the consequential Hence, when the Income Tax Act provides for a complete e

16. machinery for refund and other remedies in respect ofany impugned orders passed by the Revenue authorities, the petitioner / assessee cannot be allowed to gun-jump all the appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, while having adequate opportunities and time period for appeals against the orders passed against itself. The petitioner in this instant case has not availed or even attempted to avail any alternative or prescribed procedures ofremedy against the impugned orders and directly banged the doors of this Court with an attempt to undermine the appellate authorities without any cogent or satisfactory reasons to convince this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the judgments referred to above has categorically held that an assessee cannot directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without first exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Act. It was further held that unless a substantial question of law is made out from the impugned orders passed by the Revenue, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

18. For the foregoing reasons and judgments cited, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition No.38097 of 2025, and it is Page 15 of I 5 accordingly dismissed. Since we are declining to entertain the instant writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the right of the petitioner to avail other statutory remedies available is left open. As a consequence, Writ petition No.2g225 of 2025 also stands dismissed on similar lines.

19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD'- P, PONNA KRISHNA //TRUE COPY" ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI K.VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRI V.SEETHARAMA AVADHANI' Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Ms. J.SUNITHA' Sr' SC FOR lT [OPUC]

4. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF rrrrOrn, iigh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies BsR l&-.

HIGH COURT DATED: 2510612026

COMMON ORDER

co f o6 Jutzm o .b Y 1$e S rAre .k Ci:Si:AiC z t iI WP.Nos.38097 & 28552 OF 2025 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITION'S, WITHOUT GOSTS Ct \ ry

\1