Disposed

Ms Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Ajit Kumar Chowdhary v. Union Of India Through The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Jul 2013WPC/7641/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by M/s Central Coalfields Limited. The petitioner complained that a refundable amount of crore rupees was not refunded within a year despite an appellate order. The respondents agreed to complete the refund within six weeks, and the petitions were disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directio directed the respondents to refund the amount within six weeks, otherwise the erring officers will be liable for interest.

Ms Central Coalfields Limited… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(T) No. 7636 of 2012

¶3

with

¶4

W.P.(T) No. 7641 of 2012 with W.P.(T) No. 7651 of 2012 with W.P.(T) No. 7670 of 2012 with W.P.(T) No. 7671 of 2012 with W.P.(T) No. 7681 of 2012

¶5

M/s Central Coalfields Limited...... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Binod Poddar, Sr. Advocate M/s Mahendra Choudhary, Piyush Podar & Amrita Sinha, Advocates. For the Respondent: M/s Deepak Roshan &

¶10

Rupa Kumari, Advocates.

¶11

------ Dated 4th July, 2013

¶12

The short issue involved in these writ petitions is that according to learned counsel for the petitioner in spite of appellate order, the amount which has been recovered by the revenue and which became refundable to the petitioner has not been refunded in last more than one year and the amount refundable is in crores of rupees. According to the petitioner the respondents are under obligation to refund the amount.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that

¶14

because of some administrative reasons the amount could not have been refunded but now everything is complete and the process of refund will be completed strictly within a period of six weeks from today.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it may be made clear that in case refund is not made within a period of six weeks then the liability of interest may be fixed upon the erring officer.

¶16

For that purpose of awarding of any interest if needed may be considered when the refundable amount is not paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that all endeavor should be made to refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks and in case the refund is not made to the petitioner within a period of six weeks, there may be possibility that erring officer may be saddled with the liability of the interest.

¶17

The writ petitions of the writ petitioner are disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(Prakash Tatia, C J)

¶19

(Jaya Roy, J)

¶20

Alankar/-

Ms Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Ajit Kumar Chowdhary v. Union Of India Through The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Ajit Kumar Chowdhary v. Union Of India Through The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Late Ratan Lal Jain through Its Legal Heir Smt Bimla Devi Jain

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sri Tejinder Singh

Commissioner of Income Tax Mada Building Vs Lions Club of Govindpur Seva Trust

Ms Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Ajit Kumar Chowdhary Vs Union Of India Through The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Ors.

Rangamatia Coal Coke Audyogik Sahayog Limited Represents Its Secretary Sri S P Sao Vs Union Of India Through Chief Vigilance Commissioner And Anr.

Ghanshyam Pathak Vs Welfare