OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constituted Writ Jurisdiction) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/1/2026 In WPO/117/2026 VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE 3(2), KOLKATA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI Date : 15th September, 2026 Appearance: Mr. Sanchit Jolly, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonmya Singh, Adv. Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Tarak Nath Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Sujit Mitra, Adv. …for the Income Tax Department The Court:- 1. This is an application seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents “to issue the principal refund amounting to Rs.9,43,29,379/- due to the petitioner as a successor to Idea Cellular Limited (‘ICL’), Vodafone East Limited (‘VEL’) and Vodafone South Limited (‘VSL’) for Assessment Year 2010-11 along with applicable upto date interest under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Act”. 2. Mr. Jolly, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the aforesaid sum on the strength of two 2 “give effect” orders dated January 15, 2018 under Section 254/201(1)/201)(1A) of the 1961 Act and a “give effect” order dated August 2, 2024 under Section 260(1A)/253/251/201(1)/201(1A) of the 1961 Act. It is submitted that the order dated August 02, 2024 was rectified by the order dated November 24, 2024 at page 167 of the writ petition. 3. He relies on a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi in the petitioner’s own case being [WP(C) 2729/2026 (Vodafone Idea Limited vs. ACIT Circle 79(1), New Delhi and Another] to demonstrate that the respondents had filed a counter-affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi asserting that out of the total demand to the tune of Rs.924,57,20,992/- (Rupees Nine Hundred Twenty Four Crore Fifty Sever Lakh Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Two only) an amount of Rs.913,66,12,715/- (Rupees Nine Hundred Thirteen Crore Sixty Six Lakh Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen only) had been stayed by various authorities/Courts and only a sum of Rs.10,91,08,277/- (Rupees Ten Crore Ninety One Lakh Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Seven only) remained due and payable by the petitioner. He also took the Court through a paragraph in the said judgment which records that in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, the statement made on behalf of the Income Tax Authorities in the counter affidavit had been refuted and it had been stated that a sum of Rs.27,63,141/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh Sixty Three Thousand One Hundred Forty Only) only remained outstanding against the petitioner and not the sum alleged by the Income Tax Authorities. 3 4. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the sum indicated in the writ petition, in any case. 5. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Income Tax Authorities invites the attention of the Court to annexure-“A” to GA/1/2026 (at page 15 thereof) and submits that out of the three constituents which aggregate to the amount claimed by the petitioner on account of refund in the present writ petition, the claim as regards the third constituent (being a sum of Rs.3,49,99,380/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Nine Lakh Ninety Nine thousand Three Hundred Eighty only) has been substantially answered and the claim will be fully resolved in due course. It is submitted that out of the said sum, admittedly a sum of Rs.2,09,58,584/- (Rupees Two Crore Nine Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four only) has been paid to the petitioner. The balance sum on account of interest, it is submitted, would be paid to the petitioner in due course. 6. Insofar as the other the two constituents mentioned at serial nos. 1 and 2 of the chart which forms annexure “A” to GA/1/2026 is concerned, Mr. Jaiswal submits that the said claims have not been acknowledged by the Income Tax Authorities and have been rejected since the Financial Year in respect of the said sums were not indicated by the petitioner. 7. He further invites the attention of this Court to an email addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS-3, Kolkata on September 9, 2026 to buttress his submission that if the petitioner raises a refund ticket financial year-wise, the Department would proceed to examine the petitioner’s case expeditiously for disposal. 4 8. Mr. Jolly, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner responds to such submissions made by Mr. Jaiswal by inviting the attention of this Court again to the order dated August 18, 2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi. 9. He demonstrates that a similar submission made by the Income Tax Authorities before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was turned down by the said High Court by observing that Section 200A and Section 201 of the 1961 Act operate in two different fields. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner's case is one of assessment of TDS and once an order has been passed in favour of the petitioner, there would be no occasion for the Income Tax Authorities to raise a question on any ground that may be available to them under section 200A of the 1961 Act. 11. It is further submitted that in such view of the matter, the petitioner was not obliged to fill up Form 26B as asserted on behalf of the Income Tax Authorities. He then takes this Court through several representations made on behalf of the petitioner to the Income Tax Authorities i.e. letter dated January 16, 2025 (annexure P3 at page 83 of the writ petition), letter dated March 4, 2025 (annexure P4 at page 213 of the writ petition) and letter dated June 13, 2025 (annexure P26 at page 286 of the writ petition) to demonstrate that in all such representations the financial year, assessment year, TAN and PAN of all the predecessor entities of the petitioner were clearly indicated and as such, even if the assertion of the department is taken at face value, the department’s stand would have no legs to stand. 5 12. 5 12. He invites the attention of this Court to the “give effect” orders which he had cited to show the basis of the petitioner’s claim for refund and submits that the said refunds arise from the orders giving effect to the appellate orders and as such, there can be no occasion for the department to feign ignorance to the financial years in respect whereof, the claim of refund has been made. 13. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 14. It is not in dispute that upon the Appellate Authority holding in favour of the petitioner, in three separate appeals, three ‘give effect’ orders were passed by the respondent Income Tax Authorities. Two of the said orders had been passed on January 15, 2018 under Section 254/201(1)/201)(1A) of the 1961 Act and the third was passed on November 29, 2024 under Section 154/260 (1A) of the 1961 Act. It is in terms of the said three orders that the petitioner claims entitlement to refund. 15. It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Income Tax Authorities that their only contention is that the financial years in respect of the relevant claims for refund made by the petitioner were not indicated by the petitioner. Such submission does not impress the Court. 16. Once the petitioner has been found to be entitled to refund on the basis of ‘give effect’ orders which form part of the records of the respondent Income Tax Authorities, the petitioner’s entitlement cannot be wished away on such a technical ground as the one urged before this Court. 17. In the petitioner’s own case, the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi dealt with a similar issue and held as follows: 6 “16. The case in hands portrays a grim picture of the state of affairs prevailing in the Department so far as issues relating to refund is concerned. The amount relating to the petitioner for AYs 2003-04, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 is still lying with the Department after 10 years of legal battle which it had won before the Tribunal in June 2024. The petitioner's plight does not end here. After having won the legal battle before the Tribunal, though the AO found an amount of Rs.53,09,56,470/- refundable to the petitioner in October 2024 & May 2026 but has still not remitted the amount. This time the AO took refuge of Form 26B and purported outstanding demand of petitioner's sister TANs to the tune of Rs. 10,91,08,277/-. 17. Having gone through the scheme of the Act of 1961, more particularly, Sections 200A and 201 of the Act of 1961, Rule 31A of the Rules of 1962 and Form 26B, we have no hesitation in holding that Sections 200A & 201 of the Act of 1961 operate on entirely different fields and spheres. Section 201 of the Act of 1961 is a provision which deals with the assessment of TDS while Section 200A of the Act of 1961 deals with adjustment of TDS prior to assessment at the level of CPC. Rule 31A of the Rules of 1962 is a procedure provided for such adjustment and Form 26B is a form meant to facilitate such adjustment. 18. Once the assessment by a competent AO has been made under Section 201 of the Act of 1961 and/or any Appellate Authority passes an order and the refund arises or emanates therefrom, it becomes a vested and crystallised right of an assessee to get the refund, along with applicable interest, subject of course to the Department's right to challenge such order in accordance with law. Such order is neither subservient to Section 200A of the Act of 1961 nor to Rule 31A of the Rules of 1962. 19. We hold it very categorically that once an assessment under Section 201 of the Act of 1961 has been made, neither Rule 31A of the Rules of 1962 applies nor can the AO or the CPC compel any assessee to furnish Form 26B and therefore, the amount found refundable after giving effect to the Appellate Authority's order has to be paid along with applicable interest, subject of course to withholding or adjustment by way of legally passed order under Section 245 of the Act of 1961. 20. 20. Unless any order under Section 245 of the Act of 1961 is passed, the AO or the CPC cannot withhold any amount of an assessee once the Appellate Authority or 7 the AO finds an amount to be refundable after passing of an order under Section 201 of the Act of 1961 or pursuant to an appeal arising therefrom.” 18. In the case at hand where the situation is substantially the same, this Court does not find any reason to take a divergent course. 19. Indeed, it has not been demonstrated before this Court that there is any order passed under Section 245 of the 1961 Act, on the strength whereof the amounts claimed by the petitioner to be refundable to it can be withheld. 20. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing the respondents to process the petitioner’s request for refund on the basis of the aforesaid three ‘give effect’ orders dated January 15, 2018 and November 29, 2024 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from date. Needless to mention that in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi, the respondent Income Tax Authorities shall be liable pay interest to the petitioner on the refundable amounts in terms of Section 244A and 244A(1A) of the 1961 Act till the date of payment thereof. 21. WPO/117/2026 stands disposed of, with the above observation. Since the writ petition itself has been disposed of, the connected application being IA NO. GA/1/2026 also stands disposed of accordingly. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) s.bag/spal