9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts : Mrs. K. Ravi ORDER Heard Mr. R. Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the third respondent rejecting the petitioner's application for refund of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- which was recovered by the Department by encashing a bank guara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 is quoted herein below : "After hearing the arguments on either side, this Court was inclined to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order primarily for two reasons. 2. It is for the respondent Department to verify the records and ascertain the date on which they have encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. Unfortunately, the respondent department has dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when they have encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. The respondents have to take a default stand, because the bank guarantee was encashed by the Department and to state that the petitioner has to produce the date on which the Department has encashed the bank guarantee is wholly unsustainable. With these observations, one more final chance is given to the respondent Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner has produced the redemption letter from the Competent Authority/Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, subsequent to the encashment of the bank guarantee. However, the respondents are bound to honor the redemption letter and effect the refund. The respondents cannot call upon the petitioner to prove when the bank guarantee was encashed. It is for the Department to verify their records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
