IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7057 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHAPURI SAW MILLS & COMPANY Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SN SOPARKAR for Petitioner MR AKHIL KURESHI WITH MR MR BHATT for Respondent No. 1, 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 17/02/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT The challenge in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is against the order of the respondent No.1 dated 1.3.93, whereby, the application for condonation of delay in granting refund to the petitioner under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), came to be rejected. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the correspondence exchanged between the assessee and the authorities. Considering the circular No.503 of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), dated 6.2.88, addressed to all the Chief Commissioners, the respondent is required to be directed to entertain the claim for refund for the assessment orders of 1984-85 and 1985-86, though the claim for refund is belated and decide the merits of the refund claim for each assessment year in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the delay, in view of the circular of the CBDT, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ from his Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to deal with the same and decide afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to assessee. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. .... (vjn)