9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of GIRDHARI LAL AND SONS Versus BALBIR NATH MATHUR AND OTHERS [1986 (2) TMI 253 - Supreme Court of India], held that in order to avoid patent injustice or invalidation of law, strict adhering to the time limit for filing refund claims stipulated in a notification would only adversely affect the public interest and thereby defeat the very purpose of issuing N/N. 32/2005 - since the refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uses at Nagapattinam, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari Districts at a cost of ₹ 2.25 lakhs each for the Tsunami victims. The appellant constructed 188 houses as per the order of Government of Tamilnadu dated 06.5.2005 for the permanent rehabilitation of the Tsunami affected people at Keelamangudi Village in Kanyakumari District. The respondents have constructed 88 houses as per the Govt. of Tami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible and in order. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR Shri B. Balamurugan submitted that time for filing refund claim mentioned in the Notification is 60 days and the refund claim have to be filed on quarterly basis. The refund claim for October 2005 to December 2005 is filed beyond 120 days and therefore has been rightly rejected by the original authority. He submitted that the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y given benefit of sanction of refund. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. In the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Giridhari Lal Son Vs. Balbir Nath Mathur Ors. - AIR 1986 SC 1499 to observe that in order to avoid patent injustice or invalidation of law, strict adhering to the time limit for filing refund claims stipulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
