1997 (8) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Pursuant to that order, a refund voucher was prepared on March 14, 1996, which was issued by the respondent on June 15, 1996. As a voucher is valid only for a period of 60 days under rule 99 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, the voucher dated March 14, 1996, was dishonoured by the bank, as that was presented much beyond the period of validity. The respondent then prepared another voucher on August 29, 1996, which is said to have been despatched on November 13, 1996, and that, according to the petitioner, was received on November 16, 1996. The second voucher dated August 29, 1996, also suffered from the same infirmity and, therefore, that too was dishonoured by the bank. 4.. Counsel for the petitioner states before us that the amount was refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e entitled to refund thereunder. We have gone through the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent. No averment has been made in the counter-affidavit anywhere that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was received by the respondent in the year 1996 when the order to refund was passed. Therefore, we will be fully justified in assuming that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was received by the respondent, who passed the order for refund, within a reasonable time. As a consequence of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent should have refunded the amount within three months from the date of the order. In the counteraffidavit, it is averred that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the respondent, but whatever delay was ....