Later circulars cannot unsettle a concluded refund period when the original sanction was supported by declarations and certificates.

A departmental circular issued after the relevant period could not be used to deny or revise a refund already sanctioned for January to March 2005. The refund had been granted on the basis of declarations and certificates from the GTA, and the record did not justify disturbing that original sanction. In the absence of any demand notice to recover the amount already refunded, the revisionary order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the original refund order restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental circular issued after the relevant period could be applied to deny or revise a refund granted for the earlier period, and whether the original refund order required interference.

Analysis: The relevant period was January 2005 to March 2005, whereas the circular relied upon by the department was issued later. The department had only passed an order in revision and had not issued any demand notice to recover the amount already refunded. The refund had been granted on the basis of declarations and certificates obtained from the GTA, and the objections raised did not justify disturbing the original sanction.

Conclusion: The later circular could not be invoked against the earlier period, and the original refund order was ; the revisionary order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the original refund order was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A circular cannot be applied to a concluded period so as to unsettle a refund already sanctioned on the facts then prevailing, especially in the absence of a demand notice for recovery.

---