9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anuradha, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Sri. K.V. Aravind, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri. B.R. Manjunath, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 295 (Kar.)]. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25-10-2002 directing the respondents to consider the representation with all material particulars. The petitioner filed a representation along with supporting documents and the same was refused by the respondents. Again, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 2741-42/2003 [2004 (163) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 30-7-2010. It is also not in dispute that in fact an order passed by the Division Bench has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking refund of the amount on 12-1-2011 vide Annexure-J and again after disposal of the SLP on 12-4-2018 vide Annexure-T. However, the applications submitted by the petitioner were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the record, it is evident that after passing of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 30-7-2010, the petitioner had submitted an application for refund on 12-1-2011 and thereafter, on 12-4-2018 after disposal of SLP. Therefore, the ground on which the application seeking refund has been rejected is factually incorrect. It is relevant to extract paragraph-22 of the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
