" HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.31676 of 2012 Date: 08.11.2013 Between: M/s Sri Hari Rao and Company, a partnership firm Represented by Managing Partner Sri Ch.Hari Rao .....Petitioner AND The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax (Administration) Hyderabd and others. ...Respondents HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.31676 of 2012 ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax-III and Income Tax Officer, having their offices at Hyderabad, are necessary parties to this writ petition. We, therefore, on oral application of both the parties, implead them as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in this writ petition. Let the cause title be corrected by the petitioner. Registry is directed to make necessary amendment. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for respondents submits that the application alleged to have been made by the writ petitioner has not been received by the concerned officer. However, such submission is disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has brought to our notice a copy of the letter dated 15.12.2011 at page-32 of the writ petition. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax-II has received the application of the petitioner. We do not know whether he is competent to decide the question of refund of tax amount or not. However, we are in doubt whether the application has been made in proper form or not. Therefore, we direct the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad, who has received the application, shall intimate to the petitioner whether this application for refund of tax amount is in proper form or not and this intimation shall be given to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, the application is not in order, then the petitioner shall file appropriate application, within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of the order, before the appropriate officer. On receipt of such application, the appropriate officer shall consider the same upon hearing the petitioner and take a decision with regard to refund of tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that, in the event, no such fresh application is made by the petitioner, if it is warranted to be made, within the time stipulated by this Court, then the issue will be closed chapter and this order passed by the Court will stand recalled. If the application is found to be in order, the same shall be considered in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 08.11.2013 Gsn "