1982 (10) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax deposited, now in dispute is not the property of the respondent. It was undoubtedly the property of the petitioner. The respondents in any case have no right to retain something which is not theirs. It is admitted by the respondents in their affidavit in paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit that as per the assessment orders the petitioner has been held entitled to refund of Rs. 80,342, Rs. 9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rounds. But the salient feature therein was that the order of assessments had not been annulled. The petitions were also very much delayed and so the ground of laches was also pleaded against the petitioner therein. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had followed a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this regard. There also the facts were peculiar to the case before the Andhra Pradesh High C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent to raise this plea. In law respondents cannot retain something which is not theirs and which they are bound to refund under the provisions of the Act. Indeed not paying back would amount to depriving the petitioner of its property without due process of law. That would be unconstitutional. One may refer to article 265 of the Constitution in this regard. Accordingly, we hold that the petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X