TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. - W.P.C. No. 18723 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2016 - A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J FOR THE PETITIONER ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SRI.R.SREEJITH, KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH, KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY. FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADVS. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC, SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the Kerala State Beverages (M M) Corporation Ltd. challenging Ext.P7 and for a direction to the respondent to grant refund of the amount adjusted as per Ext.P2 letter. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, being an assessee before the 1st respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IT Act') filed returns for the assessment year 2012-13 admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en incorporated by which it is open for the petitioner to move an application for stay of collection of tax on remitting 15% of the demand. The maximum that can be levied is only 15% and therefore, when the petitioner had made a request for such adjustment, it ought to have been permitted. 4. A statement is filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents inter alia stating that the outstanding demand of ₹ 340.93 Crores arose on account of the disallowance of the petitioner's claim for deduction of surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax. The refunds in respect of the respective assessment years have arisen on account of deletion of similar disallowances for the earlier assessment years. It is stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a view in the matter, I do not think that there will be any justification on the part of this Court in setting aside the said order, as no infirmity can be pointed out to the said order. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that Ext.P10 series have never been served on the petitioner and it was preceded by Ext.P2 notice dated 3/2/2015. It might be correct to say that Ext.P2 ought to have been issued after the order dated 06/02/2015, which is produced as Ext.P10 series. But the fact remains that once Ext.P10 series had been issued and the appellate authority had taken cognizance of the said fact while granting stay, a direction to refund the amount, as claimed, is not sustainable. As rightly pointed out by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
