TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs: "a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, setting aside and annulling the Refund Sanction-cum-Refund Adjustment Order which illegally adjusted the refund of tax Period : 2007-08 against alleged dues of Tax Period : 2008-09 ignoring the fact that there were no pending 'dues for recovery' so as to justify invocation of refund adjustment under the proviso appended to Section 50(1) of the MVAT Act, 2003 as the petitioner had already made an application for availing benefits under the Maharashtra Settlement of A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, setting- aside and annulling the Refund Sanction-cum-Refund Adjustment Order which illegally adjusted the refund of Tax Period: 2007-08 against alleged dues of Tax Period: 2008-09 without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard resulting in grave violation of principles of natural justice. e) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to give effect to the Appeal Order dated 10th May, 2023 and to pay a refund of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 April, 2024 and 18 April, 2024 whereby admittedly the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.9,12,887/- for F.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 6,30,633/- for F.Y. 2009-10. 5. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the Settlement orders, there was no demand whatsoever in regard to the said financial years. However, the case of the petitioner is that on the presumption and oblivious to what has happened to the amnesty scheme, the department sought to adjust the refund of Rs.33,29,000/- as payable to the petitioner for the F.Y. 2007-08, for the subsequent F.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10. This, according to the petitioner, was totally untenable in view of the settlements which had taken place in respect of demands in regard to the subsequent years. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law and same would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is also important to note that the defect notice issued under Section 11 is dated 14th May 2019, wherein the outstanding amount as per Respondents record is shown at Rs. 3,30,85,284/- being difference between the outstanding for the year 2010-2011 amounting to Rs. 14,00,74,890/- and the adjustment of refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for the year 2011-2012. We fail to understand as to how on 14th May 2019, Respondents have arrived at the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,30,85,284/- after adjusting the refund for the year 2011-2012, when refund adjustment order is itself of 23rd May 2019. Therefore, the defect notice itself is defective and not in accordance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no manner has questioned the settlement, which was arrived for the Tax Period 2008-09 and 2009-10 and thus the reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision in Andreas Stihl Private Ltd. (supra) cannot be said to be irrelevant. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Chavan, learned counsel for the revenue has taken all efforts to oppose the prayers as made in the petition. She contends that the decisions as relied on behalf of the petitioner would not be applicable in the facts of the case in justifying the actions of the department. However, she fairly states that the department has not disputed and/or has accepted the settlements and that there was no demand for the settlement periods, i.e., for the Tax Period 2008-09 and 2009-10. Th....