2015 (9) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....13.03.2006 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.13631 of 1999. The writ petition was originally filed by one Annamma Ouseph, who died during the pendency of the writ petition, consequent to which the appellants, her legal representatives, were impleaded as additional petitioners in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd Respondent, refusing to entekrtain a refund application finalized by the 1st appellant for the assessment years 1994- 1995 and 1995-1996 and by the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge upheld the said order. 2. Brief facts required for the disposal of the writ appeal are as stated hereunder: 3. The writ petitioner, namely late Annamma Ouseph, was the wife of on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam and the Reference Court had awarded an amount of Rs. 20,51,248/- inclusive of all the benefits provided under the Land Acquisition Act. Again, out of the said amount, Rs. 18,56,270/- was received on 08.04.1993 and the balance of Rs. 1,94,978/- on 11.08.1994. Thus, altogether, including the amount awarded by the original authority, late Kuriakose received an amount of Rs. 51,73,364/-. But in view of the disbursal of Rs. 10,56,672.33/- to the writ petitioner during the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, the writ petitioner had filed returns and thereupon the 1st Respondent had completed the proceedings under Sec.143(1)(a) as per his intimation dated 20.03.1997. Thus, the writ petitioner namely An....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d order, the writ petition was preferred by late Annamma Ouseph. 7. Even though the Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd Respondent in the writ appeal basically contending that the petitioner was not entitled to get the reliefs sought for since the proceedings under Sec.143(1)(a) were concluded and therefore there are no circumstances available in order to re-open the same and consider the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of the intimation and to refund the amount paid for the aforesaid assessment years. It was also contended that the option accepted by the 1st appellant under the VDI Scheme cannot be re-opened under any circumstances since Secs.69 ....