2023 (6) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s payable to the petitioner, was adjusted by the respondents against the demand for a prior period (Assessment Year 2019-20) - According to the petitioner, it was impermissible for the respondents to make any such adjustment for the dues pertaining to the Assessment Year 2019-20, as the demand in respect of the said assessment year was stayed in terms of an order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 03.11.2022. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 17.11.2022, whereby a sum of ₹6,27,20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demand was stayed. 3. Notwithstanding that the petitioner was afforded thirty days to respond to the notice why the adjustment of ₹6,27,20,736/- not be made against the demand outstanding for the Assessment Year 2019-20; the respondents had proceeded to adjust the said amount and issued a refund for the balance amount (₹24,94,15,824/-) on 17.11.2021. The petitioner claims that it w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X