Premature tax notice deemed unenforceable, fresh proceedings allowed after refund decision. Court directs review and personal hearing.

The court deemed the premature notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the second respondent unenforceable. It granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after the first respondent decides on the refund representation. The court directed the first respondent to review the petitioner's representation within six weeks, allowing a personal hearing. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Premature notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Claim for refund of excise income tax for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15.
3. Justification of the claim for refund.
4. Consideration of petitioner's representation by the first respondent.
5. Enforceability of the notice issued by the second respondent.
6. Direction for the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed two writ petitions seeking relief against the first respondent's actions. In the first petition, the petitioner sought to restrain the first respondent from further proceedings based on a notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second petition requested a direction for the first respondent to review the petitioner's representation dated 20.01.2017, regarding a refund of excise income tax paid for specific assessment years. The representation highlighted the justification for the refund claim, emphasizing its validity. The first respondent had not yet decided on the refund request, which was still pending at the time of the petitions.

The second respondent, the assessing officer of a company, issued a notice claiming a substantial amount as income tax due for certain assessment years and demanded payment from the petitioner. The counter affidavit did not contest the pending refund consideration but justified the notice as necessary for national interest in recovering statutory dues. However, the court found the notice premature as it pre-judged the matter before a decision on the refund claim was made by the first respondent.

Consequently, the court deemed the notice unenforceable due to its premature nature. It granted the second respondent the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after the first respondent's decision on the refund representation. The court directed the first respondent to review the petitioner's representation within six weeks from the date of the order, providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed as well.

---