AJAY NATH RAY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the assessee claims an acceptance of two declarations filed by the assessee in respect of the two assessment years, i. e. , 1991-92 and 1992-93, whereby the assessee invoked the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the assessee's declaration for these assessment years, the outstanding amounts were approximately Rs. 95 lakhs and Rs, 2 crores 94 lakhs and the assessee offered to settle by payments of Rs. 47 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore 47 lakhs, approximately, respectively. ( 3 ) THE designated authority turned down the request on the ground that according to the Revenue there was no tax Outstanding for these assessment years. ( 4 ) THE case of the Revenue at that time was, and before me also has been that adjustments were made by the Revenue prior to the coming into operation of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998 and thus there being no outstanding, the assessee had nothing to settle up. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the Revenue large amounts of money were adjusted at several times during the year 1996 and once each in December, 1995, and January 1997. Details of these are given in the petition and there is no dispute in regard to the amounts refundable for the assessment years for which refunds were purportedly adjusted by the Revenue ; these assessment years are respectively 1990-91 and 1993-94 to 1996-97. The adjustments themselves aggregate approximately Rs. 6 crores. ( 6 ) APART therefrom the Revenue also purported to adjust a sum of Rs. 1 crore 18 lakhs, approximately which had been recovered in cash from one A. K. Chhajer, an employee of the assessee, residing in Delhi. ( 7 ) THE cash recovery was made not during the previous years or the financial years relevant to the two assessment years mentioned above, but it was in respect of the previous year for the assessment year 1994-95. ( 8 ) DR. Pal has submitted that the adjustments of the refundable amounts for the five assessment years mentioned above were made without prior intimations as required under Section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ( 9 ) THAT section is set out below :"245. ( 8 ) DR. Pal has submitted that the adjustments of the refundable amounts for the five assessment years mentioned above were made without prior intimations as required under Section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ( 9 ) THAT section is set out below :"245. Where, under any of the provisions of this Act, a refund is found to be due to any person, the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may, in lieu of payment of the refund, set off the amount to be refunded or any part of that amount, against the sum, if any, remaining payable under this Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing to such person of the action proposed to be taken under this section. " ( 10 ) DR. Pal gave authorities from all over India, viz. , Bombay, Delhi, Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh, wherefrom, according to him, there is a concensus of opinion that Section 245 is mandatory and without the giving of prior intimations to the assessee, adjustments of refunds cannot be made by the Revenue ; according to Dr. Pal, the authorities lay down that the section is on the same plane as a plain rule of natural justice and that a breach of it renders the action of the Revenue not merely voidable but void ab initio. ( 11 ) INDEED from the authorities it does appear that Dr. Pal's submission is right and that there is hardly any contrary judicial opinion in India as on date. ( 12 ) BOTH Dr. Pal and Mr. Mullick, appearing for the Revenue, gave me references to S. L. Ps. , from Allahabad decisions, but there being no pronouncement of the Supreme Court, a mere admission or a rejection of a S. L. P. would not be productive of any ratio decidendi and, therefore, is not of any guiding or binding effect. ( 13 ) REGARDING the cash recovery Dr. Pal showed from Section 132 (4a) that the money is to be taken as belonging to Chhajer, because though he might be an employee of the assessee, the recovery was from Chhajer's house. Furthermore, Dr. ( 13 ) REGARDING the cash recovery Dr. Pal showed from Section 132 (4a) that the money is to be taken as belonging to Chhajer, because though he might be an employee of the assessee, the recovery was from Chhajer's house. Furthermore, Dr. Pal submitted that although the assessee has been sought to be assessed in regard to this sum of money for a different assessment year than the two assessment years in question, still such assessment is a subject of appeal and an adjustment in that regard even before decision of the appeal is premature and illegal. ( 14 ) MR. Mullick submitted that the adjustments were made between December 1995 and January 1997, and those adjustments were intimated to the assessee in writing during that period. Although prior intimation before adjustment might not have been given, yet intimation of adjustments made by the Revenue was given and no objection was raised by the assessee in regard thereto at any point of time. According to Mr. Mullick, the assessee is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this court because it agreed by its silence to the adjustments ; it acquiesced to such adjustment. It is wrongful on the part of the assessee now to turn back and undo a settled thing only because it will be of greater financial advantage to the assessee now. ( 15 ) SINCE there is no decision of our High Court on Section 245, which was cited to me, my opinion on that section should be clarified. ( 16 ) THE wording of the section leaves no manner of doubt that the proposed adjustment is to be intimated to the assessee. Since the adjustment at the time of intimation is only a proposed one, the intimation has to go before the adjustment has been made. If the assessee objects to the proposed adjustment, whether the Revenue can nonetheless make such an adjustment on its unilateral decision, is a point which does not fall for my consideration. But quite clearly the Revenue has no jurisdiction to make an adjustment of a refund without following Section 245 and without giving a prior intimation to the assessee as required by that section. ( 17 ) EACH assessment year for each assessee is generally kept separate in the Act. The assessee has no right to club together assessment years. But quite clearly the Revenue has no jurisdiction to make an adjustment of a refund without following Section 245 and without giving a prior intimation to the assessee as required by that section. ( 17 ) EACH assessment year for each assessee is generally kept separate in the Act. The assessee has no right to club together assessment years. The Revenue also has no general right to dissect an assessment year into more than one period of time or agglomerate assessment years as they please. Since Section 245 is a special right of set off given to the Revenue as a departure from the general rule of keeping assessment years and rights and liabilities in regard thereto separate and isolated, it is essential that the section be followed in letter and spirit. The wording of the section is so clear that its letter and its spirit speak the same way. ( 18 ) IN this view of the matter, the adjustments made, although made about two years prior to the coming into operation of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998, are all ineffective. Even more ineffective is the adjustment made regarding cash recovery from Chhajer's premises, which, I am told, is also a subject-matter of revenue proceedings against Chhajer personally. ( 19 ) THE advantage of the assessee in winning this writ is that although it has to meet 50 per cent. of the liability for the two assessment years in question, yet on meeting these, all the adjustments made by the Revenue would become releasable to the assessee if the assessee's submission regarding release are right and proper. Since these must and should form the subject-matter of future proceedings, I do not want to say any more than is absolutely necessary for writing a consistent and clear opinion. The rights of the parties in regard to the release of the adjusted amounts are not adjudicated upon herein and parties will be at liberty to take future steps and proceedings in that regard. ( 20 ) TO show the bona fides of the assessee and to show that they genuinely wish to press their legal point about the ineffectiveness of the adjustment of refund and cash money, they paid large sums of money pursuant to interim orders passed by me. These were paid to the designated authority. The payments were made on March 24, 1999 (Rs. These were paid to the designated authority. The payments were made on March 24, 1999 (Rs. 59,17,222) and March 24, 1999 again (Rs. 1,82,16,944 ). ( 21 ) THESE two payments were made pursuant to the declarations of the assessee filed for the two assessment years. If these payments are accepted as good, which I propose to do, the liability of the assessee for the two assessment years would get completely wiped out. The assessee will then be free to pursue the assessee's remedy in regard to the adjustments purportedly made in respect of these two financial years. ( 22 ) IN my opinion, Mr. Mullick's submission that the assessee has disentitled itself to discretionary relief from this court is not, with respect, well founded. It so happened that the coming into operation of the KVS Scheme was not delayed beyond three years of even the first adjustment made by the Revenue. It was one month short of three years. Thus the ordinary period of limitation is not strictly applicable. ( 23 ) REGARDING the enforcement of legal rights by the assessee, seeking to take advantage of new law and seeking to undo its long continued silence, it is in my opinion, a permissible procedure in a revenue matter. An asses-see is entitled to proceed in accordance with law and claim refunds in accordance with law. If it appears to the assessee that payment of Rs. 2 1/2 crores now will, by operation of law, throw open the doors towards recovery by the assessee of nearly Rs. 5 or 6 crores later on, then I do not see how such payment, if legally made now, can be a matter to be taken against the assessee in the matter of exercise of the writ court's discretion. ( 24 ) IF the Revenue made adjustments without the essential perquisites, the Revenue was keeping the matter uncertain ; if the assessee never objected, well and good. If the assessee objected, everything gets undone, as it is getting undone today. ( 25 ) WHERE 5 or 10 crore rupees are involved it is important to proceed in accordance with law and take the steps properly in the interest of all parties concerned. If there are loopholes, advantage is bound to be taken thereof by a party if he can legally take it. ( 26 ) THE writ application accordingly succeeds. ( 25 ) WHERE 5 or 10 crore rupees are involved it is important to proceed in accordance with law and take the steps properly in the interest of all parties concerned. If there are loopholes, advantage is bound to be taken thereof by a party if he can legally take it. ( 26 ) THE writ application accordingly succeeds. The interim order already passed will stand confirmed. The provisional certificate, if any issued by the designated authority, on the basis of the payments made by the assessee shall hereafter be treated as final and permanent. The assessee will be at liberty to take steps for obtaining refund or recovery of the amounts adjusted in the two assessment years ; such steps to be taken in accordance with law and no pronouncement is made in that regard here. Whether the rule was issued or not there will be a rule absolute in terms of prayers (a) (i), (a) (ii), (a) (iv), (b) and (c) but not (a) (iii) which is a matter for the future. ( 27 ) IF provisional certificate has not been issued by the designated authority, the final certificate of immunity under the KVS Scheme is to be given to the assessee for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 within four weeks from date. ( 28 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Stay of operation of this order is prayed for but the same is refused. .