2015 (3) TMI 1363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cate, for the petitioner. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Ahuja, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ORDER S.J. VAZIFDAR A.C.J. (Oral) Rule. Rule returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to refund the amount seized by him under section 226(3) o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on behalf of the State of Punjab. Such amounts actually belong to the State of Punjab and not to respondent No.4. 5. The first respondent does not even contend that if the amounts were collected for and on behalf of the petitioner-State of Punjab, the Tax Department would have any claim in respect thereof qua the dues of respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 infact contends that it never sought to re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... njab. The order shall also not operate in respect of any accretion to the amounts. The amounts shall be refunded by respondent No.1 within 12 weeks from the receipt of a communication by the petitioner specifying the details of the accounts kept by respondent No.4 on behalf of the petitioner and in the name of the petitioner itself. We would not express any opinion regarding the question of in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X