# U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited v. Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of Revenue Thru. Secy.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 985
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-08
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 16125 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-rajya-nirman-sahakari-sangh-limited-v-union-of-india-min-of-finance-dept-of-52607
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A.S.G.,
D.K.Pathak,
Kushagra
Dikshit,
Manish Mishra

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Assessing Officer could deny
refund of tax deducted at source to the
petitioner merely on the ground that the TDS
amount was not reflected in Form 26AS, despite
the petitioner furnishing TDS certificates in Form
16A, and whether a mandamus could be issued
for grant of credit and refund of such TDS in
accordance with law.

HEADNOTE
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 80P, 154,
226(3) - Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of certiorari and mandamus - Cooperative
Society exempt under Section 80P - Notice
dated 05.12.2017 issued under Section 226(3)
directing withdrawal of Rs.3.50 crore from bank
account of petitioner - Prayer for quashing
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recovery and for grant of credit of TDS deducted
for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 201516 - Refund denied on ground that TDS
amount not reflected in Form 26AS - Petitioner
furnished TDS certificates in Form 16A - In the
event the TDS amount is not reflected in Form
26AS, refund must still be provided if the
assessee furnishes Form 16A - Statutory
powers of Assessing Officer sufficient to verify
whether deductor has made payment of TDS -
Assessee cannot be left to mercy or sweet will
of deductor - CBDT Instruction No.05/2013
dated
08.07.2013
reiterating
verification
mechanism - Assessing Officer cannot insist
that amount match figures in Form 26AS -
Responsibility of Assessing Officer to verify
amounts provided by assessee through proof of
Form 16A - Taxpayer should not be left at
mercy of Assessing Officer who chooses to delay
payment of genuine refunds - Directions issued
to respondent No.3 to consider documents and
pass orders in accordance with law.

HELD In the event the TDS amount is not
reflected in Form 26AS, refund must still be
provided if the assessee is able to furnish the
Form 16A certificates. A taxpayer should not be
left at the mercy of an Assessing Officer who
chooses to delay the payment of genuine
refunds. As long as the assessee is able to
provide documents proving that tax has been
deducted at source, the same has to be
accepted by the Assessing Officer, who cannot
insist that the amount match the figures in Form
26AS. It is the responsibility of the Assessing
Officer to verify the amounts provided by the
assessee through the proof of Form 16A. The
assessee in the present case is entitled to
receive a refund of the amounts once the Form
16A certificates are accepted. The respondent
No.3 was directed to take note of all documents
and pass necessary orders in accordance with
law within four weeks. With these directions,
the writ petition was disposed of. (Paras 4-12)
Writ petition disposed of with directions.
(E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
TCourt on Its Motion v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, W.P. (C) No. 2659 of 2012 (Del HC),
decided
on
14.03.2013;
Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and
Another, Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 657 of
2013 (All HC), decided on 06.05.2014.

List of Acts
Income Tax Act, 1961;
Constitution of India.

## Text

10 All. U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Vs. Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.
 Of Revenue Thru. Secy.& Ors.
985
that terms of tender are not open to
judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the
same have been tailor-made to benefit a
particular party or class of tenderers. It is
also equally settled by a long line decisions
by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a party
having participated in the tender knowing
that it was unsuccessful ordinarily, cannot
be permitted to challenge the conditions of
tender, as such after thought action on the
part
of
the
unsuccessful
bidder
is
impermissible to be entertained by the
Courts. It is trite law that a tenderer having
accepted
the
tender
conditions
and
submitted the tender does not have locus to
challenge the conditions of tender for the
reason that in such a situation any party
aggrieved by the conditions of tender ought
to have challenged the NIT before
submitting its tender pursuant to such
notice."

10. The principles that emerge
from a reading of the above judgments is
crystal clear that the Writ Court should
ordinarily refrain itself from imposing its
decision over the decision of the employer
as to whether or not to accept the bid of a
tenderer unless something very gross or
palpable is pointed out. Furthermore, a
person who has participated in the tender
process is barred from challenging the said
tender conditions at the closing stages
when it is clear that the person is
unsuccessful. Any such challenge to the
tender conditions is required to be made by
the person at the very first instance and an
unsuccessful tenderer cannot raise a ground
that the tender conditions were in any
manner unlawful so as to reverse the
decision at the eleventh hour.

11.
In
view
of
the
above
discussions, we are of the view that since
the petitioner had participated in the tender
process and was an unsuccessful bidder, he
cannot be allowed to challenge the same,
subsequently.

12. In light of the same, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 985
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ - C No. 16125 of 2025

U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of
Revenue Thru. Secy.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Desh Deepak Chopra, Shailesh Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.,
D.K.Pathak,
Kushagra
Dikshit,
Manish Mishra

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Assessing Officer could deny
refund of tax deducted at source to the
petitioner merely on the ground that the TDS
amount was not reflected in Form 26AS, despite
the petitioner furnishing TDS certificates in Form
16A, and whether a mandamus could be issued
for grant of credit and refund of such TDS in
accordance with law.

HEADNOTE
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 80P, 154,
226(3) - Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of certiorari and mandamus - Cooperative
Society exempt under Section 80P - Notice
dated 05.12.2017 issued under Section 226(3)
directing withdrawal of Rs.3.50 crore from bank
account of petitioner - Prayer for quashing
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recovery and for grant of credit of TDS deducted
for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 201516 - Refund denied on ground that TDS
amount not reflected in Form 26AS - Petitioner
furnished TDS certificates in Form 16A - In the
event the TDS amount is not reflected in Form
26AS, refund must still be provided if the
assessee furnishes Form 16A - Statutory
powers of Assessing Officer sufficient to verify
whether deductor has made payment of TDS -
Assessee cannot be left to mercy or sweet will
of deductor - CBDT Instruction No.05/2013
dated
08.07.2013
reiterating
verification
mechanism - Assessing Officer cannot insist
that amount match figures in Form 26AS -
Responsibility of Assessing Officer to verify
amounts provided by assessee through proof of
Form 16A - Taxpayer should not be left at
mercy of Assessing Officer who chooses to delay
payment of genuine refunds - Directions issued
to respondent No.3 to consider documents and
pass orders in accordance with law.

HELD In the event the TDS amount is not
reflected in Form 26AS, refund must still be
provided if the assessee is able to furnish the
Form 16A certificates. A taxpayer should not be
left at the mercy of an Assessing Officer who
chooses to delay the payment of genuine
refunds. As long as the assessee is able to
provide documents proving that tax has been
deducted at source, the same has to be
accepted by the Assessing Officer, who cannot
insist that the amount match the figures in Form
26AS. It is the responsibility of the Assessing
Officer to verify the amounts provided by the
assessee through the proof of Form 16A. The
assessee in the present case is entitled to
receive a refund of the amounts once the Form
16A certificates are accepted. The respondent
No.3 was directed to take note of all documents
and pass necessary orders in accordance with
law within four weeks. With these directions,
the writ petition was disposed of. (Paras 4-12)
Writ petition disposed of with directions.
(E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
TCourt on Its Motion v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, W.P. (C) No. 2659 of 2012 (Del HC),
decided
on
14.03.2013;
Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and
Another, Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 657 of
2013 (All HC), decided on 06.05.2014.

List of Acts
Income Tax Act, 1961;
Constitution of India.

33. List of Keywords
Tax deducted at source - Refund of TDS -
Form 16A - Form 26AS - Cooperative Society
-
Section
80P
-
Assessing
Officer
-
Verification of TDS - Mandamus - Section
226(3) - CBDT Instruction No.05/2013 -
Genuine refunds.

34. CASE ARISING FROM
Notice dated 05.12.2017 issued under Section
226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; demand
dated 23.10.2017; application under Section
154 dated 12.12.2017.

35. Appearances for Parties
Advs For
Petitioner: D.D.
Chopra,
Senior
Advocate; Chandni Bhatia; Sanyam Agarwal;
Shailesh Verma
Advs For Respondents: A.S.G.; D.K. Pathak;
Kushagra Dikshit; Manish Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chandni
Bhatia, Sanyam Agarwal and Sri Shailesh
Verma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.

2. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the petitioner has made the
following prayers :-

 "(a) issue a writ of certiorari or
any other writ or order of similar nature
quashing notice dated 05.12.2017 issued
under section 22693) of the Act (Annexure
No.1) issued by the Opposite Party No.3
10 All. U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Vs. Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.
 Of Revenue Thru. Secy.& Ors.
987
directing Opposite Party No.4 to pay Rs.
3.50 crore from the bank account of the
Petitioner held with Opposite Party No.4.
 (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or
any other writ or order of similar nature
commanding Opposite Party no.3 to allow
credit of TDS deducted in favour of the
Petitioner for the A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y.
2012-13 and A.Y. 2015-16 as appearing in
notice
of
demand
dated
23.10.2017
(Annexure No.9) and to revise income tax
demand raised against the Petitioner
accordingly.

 (c) issue a writ of Mandamus or
any other writ or order of similar nature
commanding Opposite Party No.3 to return
the
amount
of
Rs.1,50,00,000.00
withdrawn illegally under order dated
05.12.2017 passed under section 226(3) of
the Act (Annexure No.1).

 (d) issue a writ of Mandamus or
any other writ or order of similar nature
commanding Opposite Party no.3 to pass
necessary order on Application under
section 154 of the Act dated 12.12.2017
(Annexure No.10 colly.)."
3. Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has submitted that the tax
deducted at source is refundable to the
petitioner as the petitioner is a Cooperative
Society exempt under Section 80P of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. He submits that
several applications for the refund of the
amount have been made, along with the
relevant TDS certificates (Form 16A) filed
with
the
Department.
However,
the
Department is unwilling to issue the refund
on the grounds that the TDS amount is not
reflected in Form 26AS.

4. Upon hearing the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of both parties,
we are of the view that the law laid down
by the Delhi High Court in Court on Its
Motion vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Writ Petition (CIVIL) No. 2659 of 2012,
decided on 14.03.2013) and by this Court
in Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Union of
India and Another (Civil Misc. Writ
Petition (Tax) No. 657 of 2013, decided on
06.05.2014) is clear and categorical on the
point that, in the event the TDS amount is
not reflected in Form 26AS, refund must
still be provided if the petitioner is able to
furnish the Form 16A certificates.

5. In Court on Its Motion (supra),
the Delhi High Court after examining the
issue in detail has held as follows :-

 "The statutory powers given to
the Assessing Officer are sufficient and
should be resorted to and the assessee
cannot be left to the mercy or the sweet will
of the deductors. Therefore, we direct that
when an assessee approaches the Assessing
Officer
with
requisite
details
and
particulars, the said Assessing Officer will
verify whether or not the deductor has
made payment of the TDS and if the
payment has been made, credit of the same
should be given to the assessee. These
details or the TDS certificate should be
starting point for the Assessing Officer
to2013:DHC:1392-DB
W.P.
(C)
Nos.
2659/2012 & 5443/2012 Page 41 of 45
ascertain and verify the true and correct
position. The Assessing Officer will be at
liberty to get in touch with the TDS circle
in
case
he requires clarification or
confirmation. He is also at liberty to get in
touch with deductor by issuing a notice and
compelling him to upload the correct
particulars/details. The said exercise must
be and should be undertaken by the
Revenue, i.e. the Assessing Officer as an
assessee who suffers in such cases is not
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
due to his fault and can justifiably feel
deceived and defrauded. We do not accept
the stand of the Revenue that they can only
write a letter to the deductor to persuade
him to correct the uploaded entries or to
upload the details."

6. This Court, while dealing with
the similar issue, in Rakesh Kumar Gupta
(supra) has held as follows :-

 "In the light of the aforesaid, we
find from the perusal of the counter
affidavit, that the respondents have denied
refunding the TDS on the ground that the
refund would only be granted when the
TDS matches with the details mentioned in
Form 26AS. Since the mismatching is not
attributable to the assessee and the fault
solely lay with the deductor, we find that a
case has been made out for grant of a
mandamus for refund of the TDS amount.
The petitioner has also made out a case for
payment of interest since we find that the
delay in refunding the amount was
attributable solely with the Income Tax
Department and there is no fault on the part
of the assessee."

7. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner further buttresses
his argument relying upon the instructions
No.05/2013 dated 08.07.2013, wherein the
circular relies on the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in Court on Its Motion (supra)
and states as follows :-

 "3. In view of the order of the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court (reference: para
50 of the order), it has been decided by the
Board that when an assessee approaches
the Assessing Officer with requisite details
and particulars in the forms of TDS
certificate as an evidence against any
mismatched amount, the said Assessing
Officer will verify whether or not the
deductor has made payment of the TDS in
the Government Account and if the
payment has been made, credit of the same
should be given to the assessee. However,
the Assessing Officer is at liberty to
ascertain and verify the true and correct
position about the TDS certificate. Such
verification may be made with the relevant
AO(TDS). The AO(TDS) may also, if
deemed necessary, issue a notice to the
deductor to compel him to file correction
statement as per the procedure laid down.
In this regard, the AO(TDS) may invoke all
the powers and authority as available to
him/her as per the Income tax Act. If
required and necessary, he/she can obtain
prior
approval
of
the
Director
or
Commissioner
of
Income
tax.
The
authorities can also examine whether
general approval can be given.

 4. Thus, the manner laid down by
the Hon'ble HC in the above mandamus is a
method of due verification. This may be
brought to notice of all Officers working
under your jurisdiction for compliance."

8. In light of the above judgments
and the circular, we are of the view that a
taxpayer should not be left at the mercy of
an Assessing Officer who chooses to delay
the
payment
of
genuine
refunds.
Furthermore, as long as the assessee is able
to provide documents proving that tax has
been deducted at source, the same has to be
accepted by the Assessing Officer, who
cannot insist that the amount match the
figures
in
Form
26AS.
It
is
the
responsibility of the Assessing Officer to
verify the amounts provided by the
assessee through the proof of Form 16A.

9. In light of the same, we are of
the view that the assessee in the present
10 All. Ram Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
989
case is entitled to receive a refund
of the amounts once the 16A forms are
accepted by the Income Tax Authority. To
facilitate the entire process, we direct the
petitioner to appear before the respondent
No.3 on 28.10.2025 at 11:00 AM at the
office of the respondent No.3.

10. The respondent No.3 is directed
to take note of all the documents being
filed by the petitioner and pass necessary
orders in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks from date.

11. The petitioner shall be at liberty
to rely upon the judgments that have been
cited here and the circular of the CBDT
before the Assessing Officer.

12. With the above direction, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 989
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN , J.

Writ - C No. 18378 of 2019

Ram Pratap & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P..& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Arvind Srivastava, Raj Narayan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether proceedings for imposing liability for
illegal mining and fixing financial responsibility
under the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
must
necessarily
involve
a
full-fledged
inquiry
comprising disclosure of allegations, supply of
material/evidence, opportunity of defence, and
recording of reasoned findings in conformity
with the principles of natural justice; or whether
such proceedings can be sustained solely on the
basis of an ex-parte joint inspection report ?

HEADNOTE
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 - U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
-
Proceedings for illegal mining - Entire
action initiated solely on the basis of a
joint
inspection
report
-
Inspection
conducted ex-parte, without notice to the
petitioners and without preparation of
bearing report, surveyor's diary, or even
the map of the location - Only person
present
at
site,
a
petty
contractor,
subsequently filed an affidavit stating that
he had been coerced to name the
petitioners; respondents did not dispute
this - Impugned orders non-speaking,
unreasoned, mechanical, and reflecting
complete non-application of mind, as none
of
the
contentions
raised
in
the
petitioners' reply or in revision were dealt
with - Proceedings to impose liability for
illegal
mining,
being
quasi
judicial
proceedings entailing civil consequences,
require a full-fledged inquiry comprising
allegation/evidence,
opportunity
of
defence,
and
recording
of
reasoned
findings; State must prove illegal mining
through credible evidence - Action cannot
be sustained on an ex-parte inspection -
Remand declined as more than eleven
years had elapsed; orders set aside and
deposits directed to be refunded with
interest.

HELD Court held that the entire proceedings
were initiated against the petitioners solely on
the basis of a joint inspection report which was
carried out without any notice to the petitioners.
Essential ingredients of a lawful inspectionbearing report, surveyor's diary, and even the
map of the location where the inspection had
been conducted-were missing, a fact which
was not disputed by the respondents. Impugned