TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. Considering the aforesaid we quash the impugned order and direct the respondent - Revenue to adjust the amount of ₹ 3,28,068/- which has been deposited by the petitioner in relevant Assessment Year 2014-15 - W.P. No.16028/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2018 - Mr. P.K. Jaiswal And Mr. S.K. Awasthi, JJ. For The Petitioner : Shri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel For The Respondent : Ku. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel ORDER By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of communication dated 22/01/2018(Annexure-P/1) by which the respondent rejected the petitioner's application for adjustment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was issued in the Year 1997 and submitted that in view of the law laid by the Apex Court, his application cannot be rejected and submitted that in the aforesaid matter the issue relates to Scheme VDIS, 1997 in which, it was held that the assessees were not entitled to the benefits of the scheme since the payments made by them were not in terms of the scheme, the revenue authorities were directed to refund or adjust the amounts already deposited by the assessees in purported compliance with the provisions of the scheme to the concerned asesseees in accordance with law. He further submitted that similar direction has been made by the Andhra pradesh High Court in the case of Patchala Seethramaiah vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1999) 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any amount paid after 90 days cannot be accepted under the scheme, hence, the balance amount will have to be refunded back to the assessee. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the Scheme of 2016 is very clear and there is no provision to adjust the amount and, therefore, no such direction can be issued and prays for dismissal fo the writ petition. 12. Para 14 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemlatha Gargya(supra) is relevant which reads as under :- 14. As a consequence, in our view, the appeals preferred by the assessees must be and are hereby dismissed whereas the appeals preferred by the Revenue Authorities must be and are hereby allowed. However, having h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
