2026 (10) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Petitioner/s: Mr.Kumaresh Singh, Advocate. For the UOI: Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, C.G.C. For R-2 to 4: Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC. For the SB : Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. ORAL ORDER (PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Heard Mr. Kumaresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 as also Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the State Bank of India. 2. This writ application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "i. Issuance of direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature mandamus commanding the concerned respondents for refund of Rs.1,24,175/- alongwith....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ernet Banking vide Account No.000 000 3745 30 96340 of the State Bank of India, BSEB Patna Branch. The amount got deducted from his account. The petitioner, however, received a prompt/message on the ICEGATE portal which read "client does not exist ICEGATE. Bank provides wrong client ID (061620230 85615131)". It is stated that there was no acknowledgment whether the payment was successfully received or not. Consequently, the petitioner immediately contacted the toll free number of ICEGATE and lodged a complaint upon which the ICEGATE representative assured that the payment will be refunded within 72 hours. Since the petitioner did not receive any acknowledgment/confirmation of the payment made by him and the last date for making payment of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e mandatory requirement for filing of the appeal, twice but did not refund the payment despite the complaint made and in this way, the money belonging to the petitioner has been kept and utilized by the department during all this periods. Ultimately, finding no other way out, the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. We find from the records that even as the facts are admitted, the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 chose to not only file a counter affidavit but to take a plea in the garb of Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1944'). Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 has taken us through Section 11(B) of the Act of 1944 which is said to have been made....