Judgment : M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. BY this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1977-78 and a direction to refund to the petitioner the entire taxes deposited by it for the assessment year 1977-78 with interest. 2. WE have heard Sri M. C. Ramachandran assisted by Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, for the respondents. The facts are that the assessee, who is an old assessee under the Act, filed the return of income for the assessment year 1977-78 declaring an income of Rs. 21,17,906. In respect of this income, the tax deducted at source was Rs. 2,513, advance tax paid was Rs. 11,45,000 and self-assessment tax deposited under Section 140A was Rs. 96,267. Thus a total of Rs. 12,43,780 had been paid as tax in respect of the returned income. An assessment order dated September 25, 1980, was made determining its income at Rs. 38,58,904. This assessment was subjected to appeal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessment was barred by time and was accordingly annulled. After the annulment of the assessment, the petitioner asked the Assessing Officer to refund the whole amount of Rs. 12,43,780 paid by it but the Assessing Officer did not do so. Instead, he initiated proceedings under Section 147 read with section 148 for making a reassessment. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition for the reliefs mentioned above. Since no interim order staying the assessment proceedings was made by this court, the assessment was completed overruling the petitioner's objection that there was no cause for initiating action under Section 147/148 of the Act. The petitioner preferred appeals and ultimately the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated April 12, 1989, quashed the reassessment holding that the assessee having filed a return of income, proceedings under Section 147(a) could not be taken against the assessee. The assessment was accordingly quashed. 3. IN view of the subsequent developments, i.e., the quashing of the reassessment by the Tribunal, it was agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the petition in so far as it challenges the notice under Section 147/148 of the Act has become infructuous. The assessment was accordingly quashed. 3. IN view of the subsequent developments, i.e., the quashing of the reassessment by the Tribunal, it was agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the petition in so far as it challenges the notice under Section 147/148 of the Act has become infructuous. We, therefore, need not deal with that matter and the writ petition for reliefs (a), (b) and (c) is dismissed as having become infructuous. 4. WE are now left with the petitioner's claim for refund of the entire taxes. The contention of the petitioner is that the assessments having been quashed, there remains no liability of income-tax on the petitioner and, therefore, it is entitled to the refund of pre-paid tax. For this proposition, reliance was placed on a judgment of this court dated December 19, 1984, in Hari Nandan Agarwal (HUF) v. ITO [1986] 159 ITR 816. In that case it was held that where an assessment order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Income-tax Officer for passing a fresh order, the amounts deposited in pursuance of the assessment order become refundable. This plea was raised in paragraph 2 of the writ petition which has been replied in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit as under : "17. That paragraph 2 of the writ petition needs no reply. However, it may be mentioned here that after the receipt of the order of the Tribunal dated March 6, 1985, it was considered by the Department to withhold the refund under Section 241 as there were heavy demands outstanding in the subsequent years. Subsequently, a fresh assessment was made, vide order dated July 1, 1986, under Section 148/143(3) of the Act and after adjusting pre and post-collections, a refund of Rs. 3,61,332 was worked out which was adjusted towards demand for the assessment year 1981-82." 5. LEARNED counsel for the respondents conceded that the assessments having been quashed, any amount paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the assessments, i.e., over and above the pre-paid tax of Rs. 12,43,780, became refundable under Section 240 of the Act. He, however, contested the assessee's assertion that the assessments having been quashed, even the pre-paid tax of Rs. 12,43,780 became refundable. 12,43,780, became refundable under Section 240 of the Act. He, however, contested the assessee's assertion that the assessments having been quashed, even the pre-paid tax of Rs. 12,43,780 became refundable. It may be mentioned at the outset that the view taken by this court in Hari Nandan Agarwal's case [1986] 159 ITR 816, did not support the petitioner in so far as taxes admittedly payable on returned income and already paid in the form of tax deduction at source, advance tax and self-assessment tax are concerned. That judgment was confined only to the tax paid in pursuance of the assessment order and, admittedly, the sums amounting to Rs. 12,43,780 were not paid in pursuance of any assessment order and was in respect of pre-paid taxes, i.e., tax paid voluntarily on the assessee's own admission before the filing of the return. This view has since been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation [1995] 212 ITR 404, in which it has been held that in a case where an appellate court sets aside an assessment to be made again, no amount becomes refundable to the assessee unless a fresh assessment is made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under Section 237 what is refundable to an assessee is the excess over the amount which is properly chargeable under the Act for that year and unless a fresh assessment is made, it would not be possible to say what amount is properly chargeable and until that is determined, the question of refund may not arise. 6. THE Supreme Court was concerned with a case where a reassessment was to be made and not with a case where assessment or reassessment had been annulled leaving no scope for a reassessment. 6. THE Supreme Court was concerned with a case where a reassessment was to be made and not with a case where assessment or reassessment had been annulled leaving no scope for a reassessment. The controversy as to whether in a case where no assessment is made or the assessment made is annulled, the pre-paid taxes become refundable to the assessee or not, came up for decision before a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1992] 194 ITR 659, and after a detailed consideration of the various provisions of the Act, the Full Bench held that the amounts paid as advance tax or as tax deducted at source or paid under Section 140A by way of self-assessment represent the tax admittedly payable by an assessee and, therefore, cannot be refunded on an assessment becoming barred by time or having been otherwise annulled. We may with profit reproduce the relevant portion as under (at page 672) : "We may now turn our attention to the contention that the charge itself fails if there is no computation of total income by the Assessing Officer and, when the charge fails in that manner, the tax cannot be retained by the Department without violating the provisions of article 265 of the Constitution. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said Act provides that, where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the said Act in respect of the total income of the previous year. It is further provided in sub-section (2) that, in respect of income chargeable under sub-section (1), income-tax shall be deducted at source or paid in advance, where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of the Act. It will thus be seen that the charging Section 4 itself provided in sub-section (2) that income-tax could be deducted at source or paid in advance where it is so deductible or payable under the provisions of the Act. Chapter XVII deals with collection and recovery of tax and Section 190 provides for deduction at source and advance payment. It will thus be seen that the charging Section 4 itself provided in sub-section (2) that income-tax could be deducted at source or paid in advance where it is so deductible or payable under the provisions of the Act. Chapter XVII deals with collection and recovery of tax and Section 190 provides for deduction at source and advance payment. Sub-section (1) of Section 190 provides that, notwithstanding that the regular assessment in respect of any income is to be made in a later assessment year, the tax on such income shall be payable by deduction or collection at source or by advance payment, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and as provided in sub-section (2), nothing in Section 190 shall prejudice the charge of tax on such income under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Section 191 enjoins a duty on the assessee to pay income-tax direct where no provision is made for deduction and where income-tax has not been deducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII. Section 190, inter alia, provides that any deduction made in accordance with the provisions enumerated therein and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made. Section 202 clarified that the power to recover tax by deduction was without prejudice to any other mode of recovery. Under Section 205, it is provided that, where tax is deductible at the source, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay tax to the extent to which tax has been deducted from the income. As regards advance payment of tax, Section 207 provides that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year in accordance with the provisions of Sections 208 to 219 in respect of the current income of the assessee. Under section 208, advance tax shall be payable during a financial year in every case where the amount of such tax payable by the assessee during that year as computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII is 1,500 rupees or more. Section 209 provides for computation of advance tax. Under section 208, advance tax shall be payable during a financial year in every case where the amount of such tax payable by the assessee during that year as computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII is 1,500 rupees or more. Section 209 provides for computation of advance tax. Section 210 provides for payment of advance tax by the assessee on his own accord or in pursuance of an order of the Assessing Officer, while Section 211 relates to instalments of advance tax and due dates. It will thus be seen that elaborate provisions have been made in the Act for deduction at source and advance payment of tax. As provided in Section 199, deduction of tax at source is to be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made. In the same manner, as regards advance tax, it is provided in Section 219 that advance tax paid under the relevant provisions shall be treated as payment of tax in respect of the income of the previous year for the assessment for the assessment year next following the financial year in which it was payable. In both these sections, there is a provision for giving credit for the amounts so deducted or paid as advance tax. In view of the elaborate statutory provisions in Section 4 levying the charge of tax and contemplating collection of tax by deduction at source and advance payment of tax and in Chapter XVII detailing such collection and recovery methods, it cannot be said that the tax has been levied and collected without the authority of law and in violation of article 265 of the Constitution of India when it is collected by way of deduction at source or as advance tax. Section 139 of the Act enjoins a duty on every person to furnish a return of his total income during the previous year if it exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in the form and manner prescribed. Section 139 of the Act enjoins a duty on every person to furnish a return of his total income during the previous year if it exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in the form and manner prescribed. On filing of the returns under Section 139, the provisions of self-assessment contained in Section 140A come into play and as, inter alia, provided therein, where any tax is payable on the basis of any return required to be furnished under Section 139 or Section 148, after taking into account the amount of tax, if any, already paid under any provision of this Act, the assessee shall be liable to pay such tax together with interest payable under any provision of the Act for any delay in furnishing the return or for any default or delay in payment of advance tax, before furnishing the return and the return shall be accompanied by proof of payment of tax and interest. These provisions eloquently indicate that the liability to pay tax is not dependent on the regular assessment being made by the Assessing Officer and where returns are filed under Section 139 on the basis of which tax is payable, the assessee is made liable to pay such tax together with interest payable for any delay in furnishing the return or any default or delay in payment of advance tax. In this context, we may also refer to the provisions of Section 234B pertaining to interest for defaults in payment of advance tax and more particularly to Explanation-1, which, inter alia, provides that, in the said section, "assessed tax" means for the purpose of computing the interest payable under Section 140A, the tax on the total income as declared in the return referred to in that section as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII. It would, thus, be clear that not only the liability to be subjected to tax arises under the charging Section 4, but the liability to pay tax also arises immediately on determination of the rates of taxes with effect from the date on which such rates are made applicable and the liability to pay crystallises in the context of such rates when the total income is computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On filing of the return under Section 139, wherein such total income is indicated, Section 140A, providing for self-assessment, comes into operation and it becomes obligatory on the part of the assessee to discharge his liability which has arisen to pay the tax together with interest that may be payable for late furnishing of returns. The tax payable on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee is treated as "assessed tax". It is not at all made dependent on any regular assessment being made, though, in the event of regular assessment, the amount paid under subsection (1) of Section 140A is deemed to have been paid towards the regular assessment. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can the tax paid and collected under Section 140A be described as a mere ad hoc or interim payment which can be said to fail in the absence of a regular assessment, as was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners. As provided in sub-section (3), failure to pay tax under sub-section (1) of Section 140A created a liability to pay penalty under sub-section (3) as it stood prior to April 1, 1989, and the assessee is deemed to be in default under the provisions of sub-section (3) as they now stand. It will also be seen that the total income in respect of which the return is required to be filed under Section 139 by every person where it exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, would be the total amount of income referred to in Section 5 computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Therefore, while filing the return of total income, the assessee computes the income in the manner laid down in the Act and, where any tax is payable on the basis of such return, after taking into account the amount of tax, if any, already paid under any provisions of the Act such as deduction at source or advance payment, the assessee is made liable to pay the remaining amount of tax under Section 140A of the Act. In view of these specific provisions in the Act, it can never be said that tax is levied and collected without the authority of law and in violation of article 265 of the Constitution, where the tax is paid on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee, even if regular assessment under Section 143 does not take place." 7. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the phrase "the amount with which he is properly chargeable under this Act for that year" used in Section 237 has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation [1995] 212 ITR 404, and it has been explained that unless a fresh assessment is made, it would not be possible to say what amount is properly chargeable. LEARNED counsel, Sri Ramachandran, contended that since the assessment as well as reassessment has been quashed and no further assessment can be made it is not possible to say what amount is properly chargeable as tax from the petitioner for the year under consideration and, therefore, the whole amount paid by the petitioner including the amount of pre-paid tax should be treated as an excess and become refundable under Section 237. 8. IN our view, this approach is not legally permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which an assessment had only been set aside and was to be remade. That was a case in which the reassessment was made and the resultant refund was granted within the time prescribed under Section 244(1) but the assessee laid a claim for interest contending that the amount became refundable as soon as the appellate authority had set aside the assessment. This contention was negatived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that unless a fresh assessment is made it would not be possible to say what amount is properly chargeable from the assessee. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, cannot cover a situation like the one before us. As already stated, the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court has discussed the matter and decided the issue against the assessee. We are in full agreement with the view taken therein. Section 237 of the Act provides that only an excess over the sum with which the assessee is chargeable under the Act for a particular year can be refunded to an assessee. We are in full agreement with the view taken therein. Section 237 of the Act provides that only an excess over the sum with which the assessee is chargeable under the Act for a particular year can be refunded to an assessee. The words "properly chargeable" cannot be read as properly or legally assessed and this is what the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to. There are various provisions in the Act to indicate that tax deducted at source or paid in advance or paid on self-assessment along with submission of the return are paid in discharge of legal liability and can be refunded only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If an assessment is not made or if made is quashed or annulled the taxes already paid do not become the unauthorised collection of revenue and there is no provision in the Act which indicates that, without making an assessment, such pre-paid taxes cannot be retained by the Government. When an assessee files a return of income after the passing of the Finance Act and pays self-assessment tax under Section 140A of the Act, such taxes are, on the own admission of the assessee, amounts properly chargeable under the Act for that year and they cannot lose that character of being the amount with which he is properly chargeable under the Act simply because an assessment is not made. As a matter of fact the Act does not contemplate an assessment in every case. Under section 143(1)(a) the Assessing Officer can even without an assessment issue a notice of demand or refund and a reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 would indicate that an assessment is necessitated only where the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not paid the tax in any manner, that he can issue a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 and it is only in a case where such a notice is issued and on enquiry the Assessing Officer finds that the assessee has understated the income or has computed excessive loss or has underpaid the tax that an assessment may become necessary. But the issue of a notice under Section 143(2) does not invalidate the self-assessment by the assessee and omission to make an assessment or annulment of the assessment by the appellate authority, etc., would not make the pre-paid taxes unauthorised collections. The taxes that an assessee has paid, admitting the same to be the amount properly chargeable from him for a particular year, represent the legal liability under the Act of the assessee until an assessment under Section 143 is made and he can get a refund only if, as provided in Section 237, he satisfies the Assessing Officer that there was any excess. It is not the assessee's case at all that according to the provisions of the Act and the Finance Act, 1977, the sum of Rs. 12,43,780, was not the amount properly chargeable from it under the provisions of the Act for that year and that there is any excess. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole amount of pre-paid taxes is refundable to it is, therefore, not tenable and is hereby rejected. 9. AS regards the amounts, if any, paid by the assessee in pursuance of the two assessment orders the liability to refund the same is not denied by the Revenue and it has claimed that the refunds due to the assessee have been adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Section 241 of the Act. If there is any controversy with regard to the adjusting of the refund or the extent thereof it is permissible to the assessee to lay its claim before the Assessing Officer who shall decide the same by a speaking order in accordance with law preferably within two months of the making thereof. 10. WITH the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed. The parties will, however, bear their own costs.