^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BIL.AS.ETUR Q.'y'^J WRIT PETITION K°."" ' OF 2002 PETITIONER s ^^Y\-'^' ^ »;:^^^'""' Smt. Nirmala Rai L/R Late (Shri) B.N. Rai Aged about^O years R/0 Baldeo Bagh, Rajnandgaon* V ERS U S y<-'. 6. .^' :A. RESPONDENIS : ./fD Union of India, Throught Secretary Ministry of Finance North B&ock/ New Delhi < (2) Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi• (3) Commissioner of Income-Tax New Central Revenue Building Civil Lines^ Raipur(CeGa) (4) Income-Tax Officer Ward-l^ Rajnandgaon(C.G^) '/'%•// -"...VA ./ /^ ^{^y PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR A WRIT IN TtiE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTI ORARY ETC. -ZJ "s-sr "qi-qxn-q, '^nl^Ka, 'f^iray ^ra^r'g^t^"""-^>"''-x-:'"2r"/"7-^l-^200s2- ^T^T ^^^ (^3^?) ^it^'W^ife ^m^T^r^^jfe '^^T^'^ftcT W^T 28-2-2005 Sri ShashGnk Dubey, Senior The petjtioner has preferred appiication to respondent No,3 and ^R^ft^ ^R^tf^ ft^ if^tt^R ^^to^^ Advocate with Sri Neetabh Dubey, ,4dvocats for the petitionsr. Sri B.K- ftawat, ^nior 5ta?|ding Coun^el fork the Income Tax Department/respondents, Heard. this wrlt petition besng aggrieved by the action of respondents No.3 ^ind 4, whereby even after making illn9 return before respond^nt No,4, the refund is not being made to the ietitioner. At th@ outset, iearned couns^l for the Department submitted that sinc^ th^ oppilcation is air&ady p^nding, thsrefor1^, an order can b^ passed that respondents No3d 4 ^houJd decide 1t?e appiication within a stipuiateci time and re^pondents No.^ <& 4 will dedde the same. On the other hand, SeGrne^ Senior Counsel for the petjtioner .submJtted that in sjmilar asses, •t+?^ of the time iimit given by this Court^ possing any order. This is a seriou^ thl^ Court the Income Tax Authorl Court passed the order, but inspite , the Income Tax Authorities are not matter. When l1ie time is fixed by |tie,s are bound to pass order withtn such a period and if they have a|iy difficuity jn that asse they can request the Court for extension of ^ime. ' GRPRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50.000. ijly-r -jr l!1:i ^ '3^[ "MI'MKrl'4, ^•^•H^Ko, f^iRTy (^^^ 3?I^T ^^T (^^f^^?) ^ii^rw.l^te ^r-3Tr^r^^fe Soma ^^?W ^fr^ ^?i^T -2j Havin9 heard learned counse the submission made by Searned petition is disposed of with G dir^ctic should decide the appiication of th^ of three months from today, Inj within th©stipulated time, then th^ this Court for Gppropriate action. Conssquentiy, I.A.No.4032/2pQ3 Partbs ar@ entitled for certif ^l^fa^N ^TR^ff ^T 'fe1€tTN^^R ^^f^^i^l for th@ parties and havsng r@9ard to c^unsel for the respondents/ the writ dir^ction that rsspondents No.3 and 4 petitioner for r^fund wi-t+iin a period case, The application js not declded petitioner wiS! be at iiberty to move stands disposed of, ied copy of 1+iis order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge