9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority rejected the application for refund. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging such rejection before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Division Bench of the High Court examined the matter and having considered the order rejecting the refund came to the conclusion that there are no reasons accompanying the decision taken and following the decision in the case of SAD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gusain, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. ORDER 1. The assessment for the year 2002-2003 with respect to respondent-Society was finalized on 27.01.2004 and the Assessing Authority created an additional demand of Rs. 1,49,69,527/-(Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Seven Only) unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken and following the decision in the case of Sadhu Overseas Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2007) 30 PHT 582 as well as Ratti Woolen Mills Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 29 PHT 556 , the High Court allowed the writ petition(s) and directed the refund to be made. 4. Further, the High Court directed that the interest shall be calculated at a statutory rate of 12 per cent for the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
