Advance tax refund requires statutory procedure first; writ relief cannot bypass the prescribed refund mechanism.

Refund of excess advance tax could not be claimed before completion of the previous year because the statutory refund scheme under Chapter XIX requires a claim in the prescribed form and manner, and Rule 41(2) links the claim to a return under Section 139 unless already filed. The Court held that no independent power was shown to order refund at an earlier stage, and writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not ordinarily used to direct refund where the statutory procedure has not been completed and illegal collection was not shown. The refusal to grant a pre-return refund was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of excess advance tax before completion of the previous year and whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to direct such refund notwithstanding the statutory refund procedure.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Chapter XIX of the Income-tax Act requires a refund claim to be made in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner, and Rule 41(2) requires the claim to be accompanied by a return under Section 139 unless such return has already been filed. The Court held that, on this scheme, the refund claim could arise only after completion of the previous year, and no independent power was shown in the PCCIT to order refund before that stage. The Court further relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction to direct refund is discretionary and is not ordinarily invoked merely for refund, especially where the statutory procedure has not been completed and the amount was not shown to have been illegally collected.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a pre-return refund through writ jurisdiction, and the refusal to grant refund was upheld.

---