TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 3. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 27.07.2020, passed by the respondent no.3 i.e., Additional Director General (Adjudication) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). 2. The petitioner before us is aggrieved by the fact that even though a resolution plan has received the approval of the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Bench [in short "NCLT"], by virtue of the impugned order, a demand has been foisted on the petitioner. 2.1 The demand, in the instant case, as adjudicated by the impugned order, amounts to Rs. 23.53 crores in addition to the levy of penalty and interest. 3. It is the contention of Mr R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: "14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficaciou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....writ petitions were consequent upon declaration of law made by this Court. Hence, the High Court committed no error in entertaining the writ petitions. * * * 16. In support of the submission that a writ petition seeking mandamus for mere refund of money was not maintainable, the decision in Suganmal Vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1965 SC 1740] was cited. In AIR para 6 of the said judgment, it is stated that - "we are of the opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns were filed within a reasonable time from the date of the declaration that the law under which tax/cess was collected was unconstitutional. There is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens in such cases on the principles of public interest and equity in the light of the cases cited above. However, it must not be understood that in all cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, the refund should necessarily follow. We wish to add that even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic consequence but may be refused on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of a given case." 26. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10.1 The transactions in issue, qua which demand has been raised by the respondents/revenue concerns the Financial Year (FY) 2013-2014. 10.2. Respondent no.3 had issued a show-cause notice on 01.06.2016. 10.3 The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was triggered on an application made by the Punjab National Bank, under Section 7 of the said Code, on 26.07.2017. 10.4. Clearly, the demand was subsisting on the date when the public notice had been issued in newspapers and on the website inviting claims of the creditors, which included Central Government, State Governments and Tax Authorities. 11. It is also not disputed before us, that the respondents/revenue did not lodge their claim. 12. The record shows, that a....