under the Direct Tax ViuadSe VishrrcsScheme, 2o24 ( Scheme of 2024). Learned counsel furthersubmits that the petitioner preferred an application online inprescribed form under Section 91 of the said scheme. Thepetitioner has paid the requisite amount before filing the application underSection9 1 of the scheme, which can begatheredfrom part-E of the application (Annexure P.3). By taking this Court topart-Fof said application, which as per contention ofpetitioner is an auto generatedamount determined by the Department,an amount of Rs.-2,07,58,934 /- was refundable. Thepetitionerwas shocked toreceivethe rejection order captioned as"rejection remarks".Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that"rejectionremarks" are not properly worded. It gives an impression as ifthe Scheme of 2024 does not override the Scheme DTVSVof 2O2O(Schemeof 2O2O), whereas, a plain reading of Section 90 of Schem e of 2024makes it clear that it is pregnant with a non-obstante clause,whichhas an overriding effect not only on income tax, but,also on any other law which was in force. Thus, it hasover ridingeffect even on the Scheme of 2020. SectiongaQl washeavily relied upon to submit that tax is very much refundable, if conditions are satisfied.Thus, the impugned order is bad in law.
