TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing an order provided - Held that:- the petitioner should be given an opportunity to putforth their case before the respondents and that the respondents should consider the objections raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant - W. P. No. 4707 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the light of the 1st proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent, without following the provisions of the Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Act, had passed the impugned order rejecting the application. Further, the learned counsel contended that the 1st respondent has not given an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that any refund due to the applicant relating to another year cannot be adjusted towards the settlement amount. 5. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 09.02.2004, it is clear that the 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner and summarily rejected the application even without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner should be given an opportunity to putforth their case before the respondents and that the respondents should consider the objections raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.02.2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
