2014 (9) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kantharia & Ms Anamika Malhotra ORDER P.C. 1. The Petitioners' applications for refund have been disposed of without hearing them and that is why these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 25th July, 2014. We have heard Mr. Shah app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the law imposes a time limit for processing the refund claim. Therefore, granting a personal hearing would delay the proceedings and that is why the same was dispensed with. He has referred to several orders and judgments of the Courts of law. 3. However, there is substance in the grievance of Mr. Shah that such blanket view taken in the impugned order would be followed in all future cases. Ev....