TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sheet of this petition that when this petition was placed for admission on 28-10-1991 before the Division Bench of this Court, straightway Rule was ordered to be issued making it returnable on 25-11-1991 and the Notice as to interim relief was also ordered to be issued. By way of interim relief, it was prayed that pending hearing and final disposal of this petition the respondents be directed to pay Rs. 18,52,175.25 ps. to the petitioner. However, for some or the other reasons this petition could not be heard and finally disposed of till today. Today, this matter was listed for the 14th time and after a period of almost 13 years of passing of the order of admission, this matter is heard and disposed of today by this order. 3. The Collect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the petitioner has filed this petition before this court on 25-10-1991 i.e. within a period of 2 month from the date of hearing which took place before the respondent No. 2 on its refund Application. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that once the Collector allowed his Appeal by order dated 7-9-1989 (Annexure : G) then the respondent No. 2 Assistant Collector, who was subordinate to the Collector, was bound to grant his refund Application and though the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 twice on 21-9-1989 for the first time by way of Application (Annexure : H) and then 2nd time on 6-8-1991 (Annexure : J) the respondent No. 2 for the first time called upon the petitioner or its represe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts representative on 6-8-1991. However, we are really surprised that inspite of such show cause notice hearing which took place on 26-8-1991 no order in the matter was passed by the respondent No. 2 for a period of almost 2 months and, therefore, the petitioner was obliged to approach this Court by way of this petition in the month of October, 1991. 8. It is true that in Para : 2.6 of this petition, at page : 6, the averments made on oath that …… "On the said date (26-8-1991) the petitioner's representative appeared before the second respondent and requested him to issue refund order. The second respondent indicated that granting of refund would result into unjust enrichment. The petitioner thereupon pointed out that firstly in the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1991. 9. In view of the above learned Standing Counsel Shri Malkan for the respondents was very much right in submitting that the respondents were not required to the file any reply to such type of petition. He has rightly submitted that at first instance there was gross delay of about 2 years in approaching this Court by way of petition for the claim of their refund and no one had remained present on 26-8-1991, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has not passed any order on the refund Application of the petitioner. He submitted that in absence of any written order passed by the respondent No. 2, this Court should not entertain this petition. There is a lot of substance in this submission. If the respondent No. 2 had at all conveyed o....