Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the impugned order when an alternate statutory remedy by way of appeal before the tribunal is available, and whether the petitioner seeking interest on an already allowed refund is required to make any pre-deposit.
Analysis: The petition was examined in the context that the impugned order is appealable to the tribunal and that the tribunal has begun accepting filings though full functioning is pending due to vacancies. The Court considered the availability of the statutory appellate remedy and the nature of the petitioner's claim limited to interest on a refund already allowed. The Court noted that statutory alternate remedies cannot be bypassed merely because of time spent in litigation and that where appealability exists, the writ forum is not ordinarily to be invoked. The Court further observed that since the claim relates solely to interest on an already allowed refund, no pre-deposit would be warranted for entertainment of the appeal.
Conclusion: The writ petition is declined and the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory appeal before the tribunal; no pre-deposit is required for the appeal and the tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merits (and not on limitation) if filed within four weeks of uploading of this order; this conclusion is against the assessee.