Refund retention requires subsisting legal entitlement; endorsement upheld, while instalment relief may be considered administratively.

Where a refund granted earlier had already been set aside by the Tribunal, and no subsisting legal entitlement to retain the amount was shown, the HC held that the endorsement refusing retention was justified and sustained it. On instalments, the petitioner was not granted direct relief but was permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority, which was directed to consider the request in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the endorsement rejecting retention of the refund amount was liable to be interfered with, and whether the petitioner was entitled to instalment facility for payment.

Analysis: The refund earlier granted to the petitioner had already been set aside by the Tribunal, and there was no subsisting order supporting retention of the amount in the petitioner's favour. In the absence of any legal basis shown for retaining the money, the endorsement was held to be justified. As regards instalments, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the competent authority, which was directed to consider it in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the endorsement failed, and the endorsement was upheld. The petitioner was left to seek instalment relief by representation before the second respondent.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed on the refund issue, though the petitioner was given liberty to seek instalment relief administratively.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund order has been set aside and no subsisting legal entitlement to retain the amount is shown, the endorsement refusing retention of the refund is sustainable; instalment relief, if any, remains for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.

---