2025 (10) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Petitioner : Mr.M.Narasimha Bharathi (in all Writ Petitions) For the Respondents : Mr.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Advocate (Taxes). (in W.P.Nos.28224, 28067, 28250, 28251, 28254, 28255, 28261, 28264, 28270, 28272, 28069, 28071, 28227, 28230, 28231,28234 to 29238, 28242, 28243, 28245, 28248, 28257, 28259/2025 and Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik (Taxes) Additional Government Pleader (in W.P.Nos.30152, 30155, 30156, 30160, 30164, 30166, 30167, 30168, 30171, 30173, 30174, 30180, 30186, 30191, 30194 and 30198 of 2025) COMMON ORDER As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical in nature and the relief sought thereunder is interconnected, they were heard together and disposed of vide this Common Order. 2. The challenge in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces alleging certain discrepancies, for which the petitioners also filed their replies along with supporing documents. But the respondent concerned withoug considering the documents filed by the petitioners, passed the impugned orders, rejecting the refund claim applications made by the petitioner. He therefore prays to set aside the impugned orders. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that this is the 2nd round of litigation. Already the petitioners have filed the refund applications for the very same period under the head 'inverted duty structure', and the same were considered and the refund were also been granted. Subsequently, the petitioners filed 2nd refund applications, claiming the further claim ....