ORDER : MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondents to issue the refund of Income Tax due to the petitioner- Company for having succeeded in the appeal for AY 1998-99 but, the same has not been refunded by the respondents despite the legal obligations to refund. 2. The petitioner is a limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling detergents. The return of income for AY 1998-99 was filed on 30.11.1998 on normal income and on MAT income. The Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act on scrutiny was passed on 1.11.2000 determining the income of the petitioner. The matter was carried in appeal and the CIT (Appeal) allowed the part relief on 17.1.2002. 3. It was further carried to the Tribunal by the appellant as well as revenue and the same has been disposed of on 31.7.2013. The revenue-reopened the assessment and passed reassessment order u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2004. CIT(A) passed order on 25.11.2004. The Tribunal passed an order on 18.8.2006. 4. The petitioner appealed against the order of ITAT vide Tax Appeal No. 328 of 2007 which was decided on 11.10.2017 allowing the appeal of the assessee. 5. The order of the High Court in Tax Appeal No.328 of 2007 determining the revised total income under normal provisions and book profits u/s. 115JA. The order was served on 17.7.2019 which resulted into the refunds of taxes due to the petitioner with effect from 4.4.2018. 6. The grievance on the part of petitioner is that though the order giving effect determining the refund was passed on 4.4.2018, no refund was issued to the petitioner. 7. Request is made on the part of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 on 24.1.2020 after merely two years where, the petitioner has also pointed out certain errors in computation of interest due on the refund. However, no heed was paid to the said communication. 8. The petitioner once again reminded the respondent No.1 for refund on 9.10.2020 and 19.1.2022, but no reply was given nor the refund was given to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner filed an application before the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRMS) for issuance of refund on 28.8.2020, 10.09.2020, 10.11.2020, 20.1.2021 and 05.05.2021 with no avail. 10. 8. The petitioner once again reminded the respondent No.1 for refund on 9.10.2020 and 19.1.2022, but no reply was given nor the refund was given to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner filed an application before the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRMS) for issuance of refund on 28.8.2020, 10.09.2020, 10.11.2020, 20.1.2021 and 05.05.2021 with no avail. 10. The petitioner thereafter wrote to the respondent No.2 on 19.1.2022. However, when the respondent No.2 also did not pay any attention to such request, he has approached this Court by way of present petition urging this Court that withholding of the refund due to the petitioner in consequence to the success in appeal is bad in law. He is also relied on the decision of this Court in case of Jugal Kishore Mahendra Biyani [2020] 114 taxmann.com 530(Gujarat). It is also say of the petitioner that this harassment is faced by the taxpayers, including the delay in issuing refunds, the elaborate initiatives are undertaken by the legislature and the executive to recognize and redressed the same. It is pointed out that Section 119A which is Taxpayer’s Charter, the Board is expected to adopt and declare a Taxpayer’s charter and issue such orders, instructions and directions or guidelines to other income-tax authorities had been necessary for the administration of such Charter. The ground realities since go counter to the objectives of these measurements, these measures is according to the petitioner lose its efficacy. The petitioner should not be made to suffer unnecessarily by delay in issuance of refund. The prayers sought for by the petitioner are as follows:- (a) Direct the Respondents to issue forthwith the refunds due to the petitioner in relation to order giving effect dated 4.4.2018 at Annexure “B” along with the interest u/s. 244 (A) (1), 244A(1A) immediately without any further delay. (b) Direct the respondents to issue forthwith the refunds due to the petitioner in relation to order giving effect dated 4.4.2018 at Annexure “B” along with additional compensation in view of decision of this Court in case of Gujarat Flourochemicals Ltd. 377 ITR 307 (Gujarat) immediately without any further delay; (c) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; 11. This Court issued the notice on 24th March, 2022 for final disposal making it returnable on 26th April, 2022. (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. This Court issued the notice on 24th March, 2022 for final disposal making it returnable on 26th April, 2022. (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala as his lordship then was and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nisha M.Thakore ). 12. The affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent–Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad has denied the each and every averment made in the memo of petition. 13. According to respondent, the order u/s. 363 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the AY 1998-99 was uploaded manually on 9.7.2019 resulting into the refund of Rs.17,15,34,707/- including the interest under Section 244A of the Act. The same was sent to the range head for refund approval and was duly approved by the Range Head. The refund has been sent to the CPC, Bangalore, The same shows as Accounting Closed by the CPC. No action therefore, can be initiated or pursued as the same is neither visible nor being pushed for any further action. According to the respondent, once refund was determined and approval had been granted by the Additional CIT, Range 3(1), Ahmedabad vide letter dated 15.10.2020 in response to the AO’s letter for refund. The refund has been duly calculated and sent to the CPC, Bangalore. 14. The assessee had filed an application for issuance of refund on 28.8.2020. This is reiterated that no refund has been issued by the CPC, When once again, the incident has been again raised vide Ticket No. 1368927 on 6.8.2021, the same is re-produced as under:- “GPGRAM Matter (PAN: AAACN5350K) for the A.Y.1998-99. Refund of Rs.17,15,34,707/- has been initiated by passing manual order in case of Nirmal Ltd. for the A.Y.1998-99, but not received till date. Kindly resolve the issue as soon as possible. Attachment for the same is enclosed herewith: Solution given by the CPC: The CPC had stated that, The AO has uploaded the manual order for the PAN and A.Y.The same has been successfully accounted in CPC. Hence, ticket has been resolved” 15. No refund has been issued by the CPC, the incident has been again raised vide Ticket No.1577646 on 31.1.2022 , the same is reproduced as under:- 16. In this case manual order u/s. 154 read with Section 260A has been passed on ITBA System vide order dated 4.4.2018 and refund of Rs.17,15,34,707/- has been generated including interest u/s. 244A of the Act. In this case manual order u/s. 154 read with Section 260A has been passed on ITBA System vide order dated 4.4.2018 and refund of Rs.17,15,34,707/- has been generated including interest u/s. 244A of the Act. The same was sent to the Range head for refund approval and the Refund has also been approved by Addl.CIT Range 3(1) A’bad on 15.10.2020. 17. It is admitted that no refund till date was received by the assessee. The status of the same shows as “Accounting closed by CPC” and since CPC has closed the accounting, no action can be initiated or pursued as the same is neither visible to the AO nor pushed for any further action. 18. It is further its say that on verification of ITBA system the status or order is showing under the function order uploaded and not under function draft order as stated by the CPC. 19. Once again on 2nd February, 2023, the request has been made. However, no heed is paid. The Assessing Officer had without prejudice to the grievance of the assessee made various efforts for release of the refund in case of assessee from his end but nothing could be done by him because of the limitation of the system. 20. We have heard learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Sr.Standing Counsel and in the affidavit-in-reply also she is not disputed at that the refund after marathon litigation had been culminated in favour of the petitioner. It had also been given with interest. The reasons which are not in the hands of the Assessing Officer could not be actually verified in favour of the petitioner because all that was needed to be at the end of the Assessing Officer had been done. It is reiteratively written in the affidavit-in-reply that once the refund is finalized and interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act is given, the same had been sent to the Range Head for refund approval and it was also approved. It had been sent to CPC, Bangalore which had shown as accounting closed by the CPC and therefore, no action could be initiated or pursued as the same would be visible to the Assessing Officer. It had been sent to CPC, Bangalore which had shown as accounting closed by the CPC and therefore, no action could be initiated or pursued as the same would be visible to the Assessing Officer. According to us, this is nothing but pure harassment to the assessee, the assessing officer himself has shown difficulties and this helplessness in helping the assessee who has otherwise done what all it needed to do at his ends. This appears to be a classic case where, there is a technical glitch which no officer could have helped. The CPGRMS was approached by the petitioner and thereafter, it had on number of occasions attempted to approach the respondent No.2 - the Principal commissioner of Income Tax for its redressal. However, in wake of the technical glitch in the system, the payment of refund was not possible. 21. Bombay High Court in similar case Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2019)110 taxmann.com.185 (Bombay) was considered in the non-grant of the refund when on several occasions, the petitioner had written to the department with no avail. There was TDS mismatch of as small as Rs.1 which was cited as reasons for not releasing the refund. The Court has held that:- 8. The computer system and auto generation or any difficulty in doing so in a particular case, cannot override the correct legal position. In the present case, the correct legal position is that the petitioner must receive the refund. Whatever the technical difficulties in releasing the refund the department must sort it out. If for some reason of technical glitch the system in the present case fails to permit the payment of refund, the concerned authorized officer must manually do so. We therefore, direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s refund amount of Rs.1,49,98,21,407/- with statutory interest, which shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Before closing, we observe that this situation cannot be peculiar to the petitioner along. Surely, before the department, there would be large number of cases of assessees where the refund claim out of an order of assessment or appellate order arises as against which the same assessee may have demands for other assessment years, recovery of which, may have been suspended. In all such cases, similar difficulty may be faced by the department. Surely, before the department, there would be large number of cases of assessees where the refund claim out of an order of assessment or appellate order arises as against which the same assessee may have demands for other assessment years, recovery of which, may have been suspended. In all such cases, similar difficulty may be faced by the department. We expect the department to address this large issue so that similar disputes do not have to travel to the High Court for resolution. 22. Here the case of the petitioner is on a much better footing than the one of the petitioner before the Bombay High Court where there was anomaly of Rs.1 and that was the reason for not releasing the refund which the petitioner was entitled to. Here is not the case, it is only because the approval was already granted and sent to CPC, Bangalore for issuance of the refund. It had declared the accounting closed as per the version of the respondent in affidavit-in-reply, no action was permissible as nothing would be visible to the AO. We need also to take note of Section 119A of the I.T.Act where, it is an obligation of the Board to adopt and declare a Taxpayer’s Charter and issue such instructions, directions and guidelines to the Income Tax authorities as upon administratively necessary. The Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRMS) also approached the number of occasions by the petitioner as the application had been filed and there are merely 5 communications without any success. The legislature and executives have taken due care of the grievances of the commoners or the assessees to be redressed at the earliest without putting them any jeopardize. However, if there is any technical glitch which does not resulted the grant of refund which is otherwise the entitlement of the petitioner from the year 2018. This petition deserves to be allowed directing the respondent to release the refund of amount of Rs.17,15,34,707/- with statutory interest within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 23. This may be story of many petitioners who may not be the position either to approach this Court or may be waiting for the department to respond. This petition deserves to be allowed directing the respondent to release the refund of amount of Rs.17,15,34,707/- with statutory interest within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 23. This may be story of many petitioners who may not be the position either to approach this Court or may be waiting for the department to respond. In the large number of cases, the refund claims are made where for no fault of assessee, the refund has not been given as required under the law within the time frame. The Department shall require to redress the same at the earliest any limitation noticed in the software shall also be corrected at the earliest. We would request the learned Standing Counsel to send this to the highest authority for it to pay its attention at the earliest and do the needful in fulfilling its statutory obligation when e-mode is the only mode. 24. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of refund of appeal under Section 240 of the I.T.Act which provides thus:- 240. Refund on appeal, Where, as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, refund of any amount becomes due 31 to the assessee, the 32 [Assessing] Officer shall, except as other-wise provided in this Act, refund the amount to the assessee without his having to make any claim in that behalf: 33 [Provided that where, by the order aforesaid,— (a) an assessment is set aside or cancelled and an order of fresh assessment is directed to be made, the refund, if any, shall become due only on the making of such fresh assessment; (b) the assessment is annulled, the refund shall become due only of the amount, if any, of the tax paid in excess of the tax chargeable on the total income returned by the assessee.] 25. It is a statutory requirement that as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, the refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee, the AO shall except as otherwise provided under this Act, refund the amount to the assessee without his having to make any claim in that behalf. 26. It is a statutory requirement that as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, the refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee, the AO shall except as otherwise provided under this Act, refund the amount to the assessee without his having to make any claim in that behalf. 26. Provided of course, when the assessment is set aside or cancelled and an order of fresh assessment is directed to be made, the refund, if any, shall become due only on the making of such fresh assessment. The assessment is annulled, the refund shall become due only of the amount, if any, of the tax paid in excess of the tax chargeable on the total income returned by the assessee. 27. In the instant case as a result of the order passed in the appeal the refund of the amount had become due and it has not become disputed by the Assessing Officer. It needs to be provided to the assessee without having made any claim in that behalf. 2018 for the AY 1998-1999, the amount has become due, the number of efforts which had been made thereafter for getting the refund, which according to the AO, himself was also due to the assessee could not be given to him because of the limitation of the system itself. That being the case, the request on the part of the petitioner for compensation, though is not being granted as the statutory interest would be available to him. However, he needed to travel to this Court he would be entitled to the token cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only]