Refund claim in writ jurisdiction declined where disputed facts over notice service and assessment required authority decision.

A writ petition seeking refund was not entertained on merits because the record raised disputed questions of fact, including service of notice and the ence of assessment orders for the relevant period. The High Court declined to adjudicate the refund claim in writ jurisdiction and directed the competent authority to decide the pending refund applications afresh by a reasoned order within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking refund could be entertained when the refund applications were yet to be decided and the record disclosed disputed questions of fact concerning service of notice and assessment.

Analysis: The petitioners sought refund of amounts allegedly collected under coercion. The respondents disputed the factual basis of the claim, including the service of notice and the existence or non-existence of assessment orders for the relevant period. In view of these disputed issues of fact, the Court declined to enter upon the merits of the refund claim in writ jurisdiction. Instead, it required the competent authority to decide the pending refund applications by a reasoned order within a stipulated time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits at this stage, and the refund applications were directed to be decided afresh by the competent authority.

---