9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that during the assessment year 2017-18 the writ petitioner had no liability to pay the CESS amount but on account of demand made by the respondent No. 2 authority such CESS amount was to be deposited by the writ petitioner and subsequently it was detected by the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has no liability to pay such CESS amount and accordingly, the writ petitioner has prayed for refund of the CESS amount on 24.01.2022 which was not considered favourably on some flimsy ground as it would be reflected from Annexure-P3 to Annexure-P4 of the instant writ petition. 3. It is further submitted from the copies of the different deficiency memos as have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onth and year. It further submitted that under Section 39 (9) of the said Act of 2017 the writ petitioner did not avail the opportunity to rectify his own mistake within the time limit as prescribed thereunder. It is thus submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 authority that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed. 6. For effective adjudication of the instant lis this Court at the very outset proposes to look to the provision of Section 39 and Section 54 of the said Act of 2017 and those are reproduced hereunder in verbatim: "39. Furnishing of return: (1)..................... (2).................... (3)..................... (4).................... (5).................... (6)............ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (8A)............... (9)................. (10)............... (11)................ (12)................ (13)................ (14)................" 7. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision, if I look to the factual aspects of this case it reveals that it is the case of the writ petitioner that in the assessment year of 2017 he is not supposed to pay the CESS as according to the writ petitioner the same was wrongly demanded by the respondent No. 2 authority and since it has been detected subsequently that such demand was wrong, the writ petitioner made a claim of refund. Admittedly, such claim for demand was first made on 24.01.2022 which was not considered favourably by the respondent No. 2 authority on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriate order and should upload the said order in the relevant portal so as to enable the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. 11. In view of such, while disposing the instant writ petition this Court quashes the deficiency memo dated 21.02.2024 as issued by the respondent No. 2 authority with a direction to the respondent No. 2 authority to consider the refund application dated 05.02.2024 as made by the writ petitioner in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and thereafter to pass a reasoned order on such application and to upload the same in the relevant portal forthwith. 12. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 2191 of 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
