M/S BRIJ LAL RAM RICHHPAL, REWARI, THORUGH ITS PARTNER RAJINDER PARSHAD, GUR BAZAR, REWARI Vs. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, THE HARYANA AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent market committee, Rewari, made the best judgment assessment against the Petitioner on March 27, 1984, to the tune of Rs. 1,62,583.50, and an equal amount of Rs. 1,62. 583 50, was imposed as penalty. The Petitioner had already deposited the market fee of Rs. 1,28,460.00. It filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board under Rule 31(13) of the Agricultural Produce Markets General Rules, 1982. As the appeal of the Petitioner could not be entertained without depositing the market fee. it had to deposit Rs. 1,62,583 50 as per the directions given by the Chief Administrator, Respondent No. 1. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated February 19, 1987, vide copy, Annexure P. 1. As a result, the impugned assessment order was quashed and the case was remanded to the Committee for making the assessment afresh after supplying the material relied upon by the Petitioner firm. In spite of the order quashing the impugned assessment order, the Chief Administrator further directed as follows:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even uptil today, no fresh assessment has been made after remand and that the market fee deposited by the Petitioner firm in appeal is not being refunded to it According to the learned Counsel, no such direction was justified in withholding the refund which had become due to the Petitioner as a result of the annulment of the assessment order. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel referred to Hansa Agencies Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 1987 (2) Cur. L. J. (C. Cr. & Rev.) 284.

(3.) ONCE the assessment order was set aside, the Chief Administrator was not justified in giving the directions, reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. While construing Sections 240 and 241 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, it was held by this Court in Hansa Agencies case (supra), that the assessing authority was not justified in withholding the refund which had became due to the Petitioner as a result of the annulment of the assessment merely for the reason that the proceedings questioning the validity of the orders annulling the assessment are pending before appropriate authorities.