TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amus directing the first respondent to adjust or refund an amount of Rs. 19,65,670 due to the petitioner as a refund for the assessment year 1995-96. Counter has been filed and we have heard learned counsel for the parties. Facts are not at dispute. The petitioner had paid the amounts by way of sales tax and the respondents held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 19,65,672. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Re. 1 within three months from the date of issue of notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had no difficulty if the amounts found in excess were adjusted for the future liability and as he was only entitled to a refund of Re. 1, there was no need for him to make an application in form No. XXIII, as he had already been directed to contact the treasury to take back the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Burmah Construction Company v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 STC 816 and also in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 STC 357. In the present case, we do not feel it will be necessary for us to go into the question whether the department can refuse payment of refunds if applications are made beyond three years as contemplated by section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application for refund. Therefore, in the present case, section 33A of the Act, in our view, has no application. It transpired after some time that the respondents have neither adjusted the amount nor paid it back to the petitioner and as such, this writ petition has been filed. In these circumstances, we allow the writ petition and direct that the amounts be adjusted or refunded and along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
