Y.R.Meena, J. - (1.) By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of a learned single judge dated January 28, 1999 (see [1999] 238 ITR 820), and prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside.
(2.) The petitioner/respondent is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent-company filed the declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 to settle the tax arrears for the said assessment years. On account of settlement of the tax liability under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, there was a refund due. Instead of refunding that amount part of the amount of refund due was adjusted against the tax liability and withheld that refund due to the petitioner and there was no tax arrear within the meaning of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The petitioner has wrongly been deprived of his right to get the refund due.
(3.) Against the balance demands payable for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, respondent No. 2 had set off refunds. An intimation was sent to the petitioners by respondent No. 2. On receipt of the intimation, the petitioner raised objection to the set off by respondent No, 2, specially pointed out to respondent No. 2 that the refund due to the assessee cannot be adjusted against the amount seized from the residence of Shri A. K. Chhajer unilaterally but the request of the petitioner/respondent was rejected and the full amount of refund due has not been refunded to the petitioner-respondent. Then the petitioner/respondent filed this writ petition before this court. Learned single judge discussed the views expressed by various High Courts and has taken the view that no adjustment can be made of the refund due to the assessee, against any tax arrears, without intimation to the assessee as required under Section 245 of the Act.;