IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6705 of 2011 ====================================================== M/s Bajrang Tube Well Boring through its proprietor Ashok Kumar, S/o Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, R/o Dawadbigha facing N.M.C.H., P.S.- Kankarbagh, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar Patna. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, South Circle, Kankarbagh, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Motihari. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG 1 For the Accountant General : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 7 19-08-2011 The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a dealer within the meaning of Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The petitioner seeks refund of the amount paid in excess for the assessment years 2003-04. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that the tax deducted at source was higher than the tax liability of the petitioner. The extent of refund is not disputed as also it is not in dispute that the petitioner has made application for refund in requisite Form- XX. However, the application is not processed under the guise that the petitioner has not produced any evidence for excess payment. The reasons stated in the counter affidavit do not seem to be justified as admittedly the respondents do have the requisite information in the form of returns filed by the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.6705 of 2011 (7) dt.19-08-2011 2 / 2 2 and the certificate of tax deducted at source. Appropriate application in Form-XX also is made by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, we direct the respondent no. 2 to examine the application for refund made by the petitioner and make appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today. In the event the application for refund is rejected on any ground, the petitioner will have liberty to challenge such order. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The parties will bear their own cost. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)