2018 (1) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Thus, the impugned notice has virtually prejudged the matter and could not have been issued before a decision has been taken by the first respondent on the petitioner's request for refund. Thus the notice dated 12.01.2017, issued by the second respondent is held to be unenforceable as it is premature, giving liberty to the second respondent to initiate fresh proceedings after an order is passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th consent on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2.The petitioner has filed W.P.No.18806 of 2017 to forbear the first respondent from proceeding further pursuant to the notice dated 12.01.2017, issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In W.P.No.18807 of 2017, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the first respondent to consider his representa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... request made by the petitioner for refund is yet to be considered. However, in the counter affidavit, the officer has taken a stand that the petitioner will not be put to any loss and the notice was issued bearing in mind the national interest to recover the statutory dues. 4.In my considered view, the notice dated 12.01.2017, is premature, since there is nothing on record to state that the ref .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X