9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under protest - Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 89,228 along with interest due thereon, if any, in accordance with law - - - - - Dated:- 5-8-2004 - Judge(s) : N. K. SUD., ADARSH KUMAR GOEL JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N. K. Sud J.-The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 89,228 along with interest due thereon on account of excess payment recovered from him under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (for short "the Scheme"), enacted under Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner had filed a declaration dated December 14, 1998 (annexure P2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, dated March 23, 1999 (annexure P6), was issued by the designated authority, accepting the claim of the assessee. Thus, the amount payable was reduced from Rs. 7,03,092 to Rs. 6,13,864 (7,03,092-89,228). The certificate for full and final settlement of tax arrears under section 92 read with section 91 of the Act on Form No. 3 (annexure P7) was also issued on August 11, 1999. The assessee, thereafter, has been making successive representations to the respondents for refund of Rs. 89,228 recovered from it in excess of the amount due under the Scheme. Copies of such representations have been placed on record as annexures P8 to P13. Not receiving any response from the respondents, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed by this court in Biru Mai Gauri Shankar Jain and Co. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 234, wherein it has been held that if a declaration does not fall within the purview of the Scheme, the tax paid in pursuance thereof is refundable. Similarly, in Vasantlal Tulsidas Agrawal v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 255, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court had held that it is the obligation of the Commissioner to refund the excess amount where it is found that the same had been paid by mistake. In the present case, the excess amount had not even been paid under a mistake. It had been paid under protest. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 89,228 recovered from it in excess of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
