https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14703 The court interpreted "passing of an order" as the date of communication to the declarant, not the date signed by the authority. It ruled the petitioner complied with the 30-day payment period by paying within 30 days of receiving the intimation. The direction on Form No. 2A was deemed inconsistent with statutory provisions. The court ordered the designated authority to issue the certificate in Form No. 3 to the petitioner, overturning the earlier denial. The writ petition was allowed, and parties were to bear their own costs. en-us Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:28:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14703 The court interpreted "passing of an order" as the date of communication to the declarant, not the date signed by the authority. It ruled the petitioner complied with the 30-day payment period by paying within 30 days of receiving the intimation. The direction on Form No. 2A was deemed inconsistent with statutory provisions. The court ordered the designated authority to issue the certificate in Form No. 3 to the petitioner, overturning the earlier denial. The writ petition was allowed, and parties were to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14703