Jurisdiction over refund recovery: a show-cause notice cannot compel re-deposit where the refund was sanctioned on known facts.

Excise authorities could not recover a refund already sanctioned where the refund related to duty on exempt clearances, the earlier show-cause notice had been withdrawn, and all material facts were already within the department's knowledge. In the absence of any misrepresentation by the assessee, the refund could not be treated as erroneously granted, and the officer lacked jurisdiction to require re-deposit by notice. The existence of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the impugned recovery action was without jurisdiction. The recovery notice and consequential re-deposit order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excise authorities could recover a refund already granted to the assessee by issuing a show-cause notice and directing re-deposit, and whether the existence of an alternative remedy barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The refund related to duty paid on clearances for which exemption under Notification No. 97/70 dated 1-5-1970 was found applicable. The earlier show-cause notice had been withdrawn, the exemption position was accepted, and the authorities were aware of all relevant facts when the refund was sanctioned. There was no allegation that the assessee had misrepresented facts when claiming refund. In these circumstances, the refund could not be treated as erroneously granted so as to justify recovery proceedings. Since the officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice calling upon the assessee to repay the refunded amount, the existence of an alternative appellate remedy did not prevent writ interference.

Conclusion: The recovery notice and the consequential order directing re-deposit were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

---