9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 738 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking to grant the refund of excess tax deposited with the respondents - HELD THAT - The present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner (Excise and Taxation) to consider and decide the representation dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure P-10) in accordance with law within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. In case, on consideration, the competent authority reaches to the conclusion that the benefit claimed by the petitioner is admissible to it, in such eventuality, the consequential relief be allowed to it, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
Issues:
1. Petition for refund of excess tax deposited with the respondents. Analysis: The case involved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus for directing the respondents to grant a refund of excess tax deposited. The petitioner's counsel requested a direction to respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner (Excise and Taxation), to expeditiously consider and decide the representation dated 12.03.2020. The court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the petition with a specific directive to respondent No.3. The Deputy Commissioner was instructed to consider and decide the representation within six weeks from the receipt of the judgment's certified copy. If the competent authority found the benefit claimed by the petitioner admissible, the consequential relief was to be granted within six weeks thereafter. However, if the relief was deemed inadmissible, a speaking order was to be passed in accordance with the law. The judgment further provided that if the final decision was not made within the stipulated period, the petitioner would have the liberty to either file a fresh petition or revive the existing petition. This aspect ensured that the petitioner's rights were protected in case of any delay in the decision-making process. The court's direction aimed to expedite the resolution of the matter and ensure that the petitioner received a fair consideration of their claim for refund of excess tax deposited with the authorities. The judgment underscored the importance of timely and lawful decision-making in such matters to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.
|
