TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 2 : Mr. Harshawardhan Prasad, Advocate Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate F or the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Narayan, Advocate Mr. A. K. Ojha, Advocate Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Advocate ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board. The matter at issue is the tax to be deducted at source by the Board. The respondent authorities have recovered a sum of ₹ 11,61,20,158.00 from the Board, being the amount required to be deducted at source from the contractual amount paid to the Corporation. Although the Board has challenged the said order and is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is not in dispute t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 11,61,20,158.00. Petition is contested by the learned counsel Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad appearing for the respondent authorities. He has relied upon the judgments of the Bombay and Kerala High Courts in the matters of Sitaldas K. Motwani v. Director General of Income Tax and Others, ([2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bom)); and of Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Union of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation for the said years. In the aforesaid circumstances, it being a clear and indisputable case of double jeopardy, we direct the respondent authorities to refund the aforesaid sum of ₹ 11,61,20,158.00 to the petitioner. The refund amount shall be paid within six weeks from today. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. Registry will send copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
