High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 08 P&H CK 4809

M/S Parexel International Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, C.J · Rohit Kapoor, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP-14380-2024 (O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 320 words

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)

1.

This petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P--9) whereby application moved by the petitioner for refund has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-14) whereby the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

2.

While dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, the Appellate Authority has also made some observations on the merits of the petitioner’s claim. Both the orders are impugned primarily on the ground that refund application was within the period of limitation and that contrary view taken by the authorities cannot be sustained.

3.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 14121 of 2022 titled as ‘Bestway Agencies Private Limited Versus Union of India and Others’, decided on 18.07.2024 whereby relevant circulars/notifications issued by the respondents were relied upon to hold that the period of limitation was subsisting for filing of the application of refund. The writ petition consequently has been allowed.

4.

With reference to the said decision, it is submitted that the controversy being similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of on the same terms.

5.

Learned counsel representing the Revenue has examined the facts of the present case and does not dispute the applicability of the judgment passed in ‘Bestway Agencies Private Limited’ (supra) on the facts of the present case.

6.

In that view of the matter, this petition also succeeds and is allowed in terms thereof.

7.

We also clarify that claim of the petitioner for refund would be treated to have been moved within the period of limitation and any observation made by the Appellate Authority on the merits of the claim would not come in the way of petitioner’s claim for refund.

8.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.