The High Court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's refund claims for excess tax paid in different assessment years on the ground of time limitation. The Court observed that Rule 29 prescribes the time limit for filing refund claims, but the proviso empowers the authority to admit delayed claims if sufficient cause is shown. The impugned orders did not reflect if the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the delay. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to refund or the assessment proceedings referred to. The Court remanded the matter to the concerned authority, permitting the petitioner to explain the causes of delay in filing the refund applications.
The High Court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's refund claims for excess tax paid in different assessment years on the ground of time limitation. The Court observed that Rule 29 prescribes the time limit for filing refund claims, but the proviso empowers the authority to admit delayed claims if sufficient cause is shown. The impugned orders did not reflect if the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the delay. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to refund or the assessment proceedings referred to. The Court remanded the matter to the concerned authority, permitting the petitioner to explain the causes of delay in filing the refund applications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
