The assessees opted to settle the case under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and filed forms 1 and 2. The case having been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 for the assessment year 2011-12, the assessees sent representations to revise the protective assessment made for the assessment year 2011-12 and consequently either to adjust the amount payable for the tax liability for the assessment year or to refund it to the assessees. Meanwhile, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed in the light of the cases having being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and form 3 issued by the Department under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee applied for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the Assessing Officer to pass an order under section 154 of the Act, deleting the protective addition for the assessment year 2014-15 of the assessee and consequently, to direct the Department either to adjust the amounts of Rs. 1,09,12,172, Rs. 1,25,90,664, Rs. 1,16,99,777 and Rs. 1,20,08,628, respectively, along with interest for the assessment year 2011-12 payable by the assessee or to refund it. Allowing the petition the Court held that  an assessee cannot be taxed twice on the same income. Ultimately, the purpose of exercising power under the Act is only intended to collect correct and just tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from an assessee. The Act is not intended either to collect or retain any amount which is not due from an assessee. Under section 237 under Chapter XIX of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there is no limitation prescribed for granting refund of the amount paid in excess as tax. Directed to refund the tax paid during the Assessment year 2014-15 which had became excess. Court referred the judgement of Supreme Court in Unichem Laboratories Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise (2002) 7 SCC 145 (SC)  wherein the honourable supreme Court held that it is no part of duty of the Department to levy and collect tax which is not due to the Department. The relevant passage from the said decision reads as follows: ’12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that denial of benefit of the notification to the appellant was unfair. There can be no doubt that the authorities functioning under the Act must, as are in duty bound, protect the interest of the Revenue by levying and collecting the duty in accordance with law-no less also no more. It is no part of their duty to deprive an assessee of the benefit available to him in law with a view to augment the quantum of duty for the benefit of the Revenue. They must act reasonably and fairly. (AY.2011-12, 2014-15)