9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. Pursuant to the said refund order, the petitioner had filed a refund application before the 1st respondent. At this juncture, the respondent had once again issued a notice to the petitioner and called for the particulars, as if, he is going to revise his own order. As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, he has already assessed the excess tax amount and passed the refund order dated 22.09.2022. Having passed the same, the 1st respondent cannot issue the impugned notice dated 24.01.2023 without any provision of the law much less in terms of the Section 42(5) of the Act, and thereby the petitioner is entitled for the refund - there is no doubt that the first respondent had issued the said notice beyond the scope of his jurisdiction, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed notice dated 24.01.2023 was issued by the 1st respondent whereby calling upon the petitioner to furnish the details to re-determine the refund order. 3. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the refund order is issued, the 1st respondent is supposed to have processed the refund. Except processing, the said Officer is not at all entitled in any way to re-quantify the said refund. If any defect is found by the Officer, the same can only be carried out by way of re-assessment order or revision order. Therefore, he would contend that in spite of refunding the excess amount in terms of the order dated 22.09.2022, the refund Officer had issued the said impugned notice dated 24.01.2023 beyond his jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent had issued the said notice beyond the scope of his jurisdiction, since in the course of processing of the refund application, the 1st respondent is not empowered to re-adjudicate or re-quantify while passing the refund order. 9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that they are in the process of refunding the excess tax amount. 10. Though the respondent would submit that they are in the process of refunding the excess tax amount, no effective steps have been taken by them till date. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the 1st and the 2nd respondent to refund the excess tax amount lying with the department to an extent of a sum of Rs.2,06,22,234/- along with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
