9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... An amount of Rs. 1,05,832 had become due to the petitioner on account of refund. This amount was not paid to the petitioner. It represented. Having failed to receive a reply, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It prays that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to refund the amount along with interest. 2.. A written statement has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince nothing was due from the petitioner on that day, the respondent/authority had to make the refund and the petitioner was not required to exercise any option. Still further, the counsel points out that on receipt of the assessment order the petitioner had made a representation on August 31, 1992 for the refund of the amount. Despite this request, the payment was not made. Even a reminder was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for Rs. 44,938. Thereafter the amount of Rs. 60,874 should have been refunded to the petitioner immediately. 6.. Ms. Palika Monga contends that the petitioner had failed to exercise option in terms of rule 35 of the Rules. 7.. A perusal of rule 35 shows that the assessing authority has to directly refund the amount which "may remain after deducting any amount due from" the assessee. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f things, the refund must follow. In the present case, the authority has failed to give a direction in terms of rule 35. Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of interest. 9.. Another fact which deserves notice is that in paragraph 6 of the petition, there is categorical averment that the petitioner had written to the department vide letter dated August 31, 1992 that the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
