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

..... Dharmadhikari And A. K. Menon,JJ. 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quirement in that behalf because in his opinion 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shows either a uncalled for or undue enthusiasm which could safely be termed as arrogance as well. We do not approve of such a hasty course and, therefore, proceed to quash and set aside the impugned order. The refund claim of the Petitioners shall be now decided in accordance with law meaning thereby after hearing the Petitioners and giving them an opportunity of producing the relevant material ....