9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Sriram Sridharan. For the Respondents: Mr. N.C. Mohanty. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M. S. SONAK, J.):- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner had sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue a refund of Rs. 7,69,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 2022. He submitted that the Petitioner responded by pointing out that no such order was ever served upon the Petitioner, and, therefore, there was no question of any adjustment. The Petitioner also requested for furnishing the copy of such order, if any. 6. Mr. Sawana submits that without furnishing any copy, the impugned adjustment was made and, therefore, the Petitioner instituted this petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure prescribed under Section 245 may not be interfered with. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 10. We do not intend to interfere with the penalty order dated 14 March 2022, which was digitally signed on 22 May 2024. The Petitioner possesses an alternative and effective remedy to challenge the same. 11. However, we agree with Mr. Sawana, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the law. This shall be without prejudice to any action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 13. If so advised, the petitioner is free to challenge the penalty order digitally signed on 22 May 2024 and communicated to the Petitioner in these proceedings following law. All parties' contentions in this regard are kept open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance. 14. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
