AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Complaining non-compliance of the order dated 4th September 2025 the instant contempt application was filed. Since then by an order dated 24th April 2026 this Court directed that a copy of the contempt application be served upon the alleged contemnor.
Despite service since the contemnor was not represented in Court, taking note of the prima facie case made out, a Rule of Contempt was issued upon the alleged contemnor and the rule was made returnable on 3rd July 2026.
Pursuant to the aforesaid Rule, the contemnor appeared and submitted that the order dated 4th September 2026 has been complied with and that the entire refundable amount has been disbursed. Having regard to such submission, this Court while dispensing with the personal appearance of the contemnor directed the contemnor to file an affidavit of compliance.
Pursuant to such direction, an affidavit of compliance has been filed in Court today. A copy of such affidavit has also been made over to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.
Mr. Dudhoria, learned advocate appearing for the contemnor has drawn attention of this Court to a photocopy of the incidental detail as available on the ITBA portal pertaining to the original assessee and would submit that out of the refundable amount of Rs.5,27,613/-, a sum of Rs.3,96,747/- has been adjusted against the previous demand and a sum of Rs.1,30,866/- has been actually refunded after adjustment as on 30th June 2026.
Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, however, would submit that the petitioners were never made aware with regard to the previous demand. There is no basis for adjustment. He would submit that the entire amount should be directed to be refunded.
Having heard the learned advocates representing the respective parties, I find that in compliance with the direction passed by this Court on 4th September 2025 the refund was processed in favour of the petitioner no.1 by accepting the petitioner no.1 as legal heir of the deceased original assessee. Consequent thereupon, the Department by carrying out a previous demand payable by the original assessee had refunded the balance amount onto and in favour of the petitioner no.1.
The petitioner no.1 is aggrieved with regard to the adjustment of a sum of Rs.3,96,747/- and insists that this Court should direct the contemnor to re-compute the refundable amount and cause refund of the entire amount in favour of the petitioner no.1. On this score, I find that since the contemnor has already taken a decision while acting on the basis of the order dated 4th September 2025, there is no scope for this Court to re-adjudicate on this issue. I am of the view, there has been substantial compliance of the order dated 4th September 2025.
Thus, upon accepting the explanation given by the contemnor for the marginal delay in compliance and noting that the order dated 4th September 2025 has been substantially complied with, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by retaining the contempt application on the file.
Accordingly the contempt proceeding stands disposed of.
Rule stands discharged.
The aforesaid direction shall, however, not interfere with the rights of the petitioners to challenge the decision of adjustment in accordance with law, if so advised. The date of knowledge of such adjustment to be taken as of this day.