IU ^v^'wovo^vu^^'L/^v^^.^^^^.^,^, IN IHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTlSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER S RESPONDENTS- ';< ....^^^f^w ry^s^^" WRIT PETITLON ,.^?0? 2002 Smt» Nix-mala Rai £,/R Late (Shri) B.N. Rai aged about:^) years R O Baldeo Bagh, Rajnandgaon< V. E R S U S '15 Union of India, Through Secretary M&nistry of Finance, North Block New Delhi» (2) Central Board of Direct Taxes^ New Delhi « (3) Commissioner of Income- Tax^ New Central Revenue Buildlng, Civil Lines^ Raipur(C,G.^ (4) Income-Tax Officer^ Ward-I^ Rajnand^aon(C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OP THE CONSTI'mTION OF INDIA FOR A WRIT IN THE HA10RE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARY ETC. p.^u^s^-^ W^^I^NT ^IT^lt^T^lte ~?^[ ^{^s<ri<Li, ^Tii^j^<o, f^rrary .^^.:^Il..23j.. ^L ^i^I T^^ ( ^f^^?) ^CT^^cT^^ 28-2-2005 Sn Shashonk Dubey, Senicjr Advocate for the petitioner, Sri B.K. ftawat, Senior Department/respondents. Heard. The petjtioner has pre.ferre^l 1+ie action of respondents No,3| application to respondent No.3 anc^ the refund is not being made to 1+»4 At the outset, iearned coun^el ^ince the applicGtion is aiready passed that respondents No.3 di ^ stipuJQted time and re^pondents N4< On the other hand, submitted that in similar cases, of the time iimit given by this Couft, passing ony order, ThJs Is a thi3 Court the Income Tax such Q penod and jf tiiey have request the Court for extension of} cjr Advocate with Sri Neeiabh Dubey, Sl^nding Counsei for the Income Tax '^s^id^li ^IR^f ^ fe"^ iFst^K ^a^^^i^i this writ petition being aggrieved by and 4, whereby even after makin9 filin9 return beforc r^spondent No,4, petjtioner. for the Department submitted that (sending, therefore, an order can b& should decide the application wil+ijn a ^3 & 4 will decide the ^ame. Senior CounseJ for the petltioner ^js Court pass&d the order, but snspite ^t, the Income Tcxx Authorities are not matter, When the Tlme Is fixed by are bound to pass order within jany difficuity in that case They can time. !earn4d tHis sersoiiss Auth4ritie3 GRPRJ—FS/350— 12/2000—50,000. ^i^r^T^iN? 'OTT^l^T'^ii^ boma ^m^T %«ii^ ^rcf r<||q|(1<4, y)lTl'y<|G, f^Trafy .^..r.B.:..^^..?^./ ^T^T ^^ (^5^1) i^w^fer^^T ^ 2--i Havinci heard fearned counsfel the submjssion made by learned petition is disposed of with a di| ^houid decide the application of 1i| of three monltis from today. 1} wfthin the stipuiated time, then t^ this Court for appropriate action. Parties are entitied for certi 'Wsrf?N^ ^P^tf ^ tfe^ T^?R '^"stf^q^i^T for the parties and havina reaord to ;ounsei for the respondents, the writ rection that respondents No.3 and 4 e p&tition^r for refund within a period n case, the application is not dedded e petitloner wiji be at iibert^ to move ified copy of this order, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge