RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) Income Tax omeer, Ward —- 2, Ragnwdgaml (0.6.) kg 4. (Passed on 08W” day of September, 2008) 1. Shri Neelabh Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute with regard to refund of income tax, as claimed " by me petitioner is pending consideration since 1997: 2. Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the needful shall be done within a period of four weeks nom the date ofreeeipt of a copy ofthe order. SJasmeet Singh S/o S.Bhupendra Singh Aged about 47 yeams, R/o Mahaveer Para, Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS of Finance, North Block New Delhi. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. ORAL ORDER Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotrim Judge . Union of India mongh Secretary, Minisuy WRIT PEImON UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONsnrunON OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satiswom. J; Present: Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for‘the petitioner. ‘ Shri Amit Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms. Naushiné Afrm Ali, ' i Advocate for the respondents. 1'“ 3_ 13$,View of the clear andi’categorical statement made by learned Shri Chaudhaiy, according to Shri Dubey, nothing survives in this matter. 4. Accordingly. the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2590 of 2002 , _