Madras High Court Dismisses Vajra Global Consulting Services LLP’s Plea: Cannot File Multiple Petitions for the Same Cause of Action
Madras High Court Dismisses Vajra Global Consulting Services LLP’s Plea: Cannot File Multiple Petitions for the Same Cause of Action
The Madras High Court by its single judge Justice Anita Sumanth while dismissing the writ petition filed by Vajra Global Consulting Services LLP (petitioner), challenging an order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, ruled that the petitioner cannot be permitted to ride multiple horses for the same cause of action and directed them to pursue the appeal filed before the first appellate authority.
In the present case, the petitioner had received a Section 143(1) intimation that quantified the refund based on the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit claimed in the Return of Income.
The petition contained an error as under the head ‘rectification type,’ the petitioner opted for ‘Reprocess the Return’ instead of ‘Tax credit Mismatch Correction.’
The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 154 of the Act, which was disposed of, stating that the mistake had been rectified and no payment was outstanding.
However, the enhanced tax credit was not granted, leading to the filing of a second rectification petition.
In this writ petition, the petitioner claimed that there was a shortfall in the grant of tax credit compared to the information available in Form 26AS at that time.
The bench observed that the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the order in question, which was pending before the first appellate authority.
The judge remarked, “Be that as may, the petitioner has availed statutory remedies and rectification as well as appeal and as on date, the appeal filed by it challenging the very order impugned in this Writ Petition, is pending. I see no justification for the petitioner to be permitted to ride multiple horses for the same cause of action.”
The bench also noted that the writ petition was filed based on the mere apprehension that the relief sought may not be effectively considered or granted.
The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal filed before the first appellate authority.
“While disposing the appeal, the appellate authority, will needless to say, consider the full TDS available to the petitioner's credit at the relevant point in time,” the Court added.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
