TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d further on the basis of a show cause notice issued by respondent no. 1, dated 14-10-1985. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ravi, S. Dhavan, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, on behalf of respondents. Since the petition raises a pure question of law and does not involve any disputed question of fact we proceed to decide this writ petition at the admission stage by the consent of parties in accordance with the provisions of chapter XXII, rule 2 of the Rules of the Court. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. It manufactures polyester staple fibre at its factory in Ghaziabad. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner's case is that although the order dated 19th August, 1985 passed by the respondent no. 1 had been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) in appeal the respondent no. 1 by his order dated 3-10-1985 adjusted the a sum of Rs. 3,83,836.80 from out of the refund claim of Rs. 47,79,977.80 due to the petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter prayed to the respondent no. to refund the aforesaid sum by crediting the same in the personal ledger account of the petitioner. The amount was not refunded and on the contrary the respondent no. 1 issued a show cause notice dated the 14th October, 1985 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the price of methanol be not fixed at the rate of Rs. 5941 per m.t. in road tankers and Rs. 644 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 836.80 be not adjusted/appropriated out of the amount due to the petitioner by way of refund. The mere giving of a show cause notice does not create a demand. A demand may come into existence after the show cause notice has been adjudicated upon. That stage has so far not been reached. As a matter of fact, the order of demand passed by the respondent no. 1 having been set aside and the matter remaining pending with him for a de novo decision it was not open to the respondent no. 1 not to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner. 6. In the present case, the order of the refund would not result in actual paying of any amount to the petitioner but only crediting the said amount in the personal ledger account of the petitioners that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
