This one-line order dismisses the writ petition as infructuous, stating that the respondents have refunded the claimed amounts, thereby rendering the claim without purpose.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~41
SAMITECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neha Choudhary, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shatrajit Banerji, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD along with Mr. Lokesh Prasad (VATO, 106).
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R % 09.08.2016
It is submitted that the respondents have refunded the amountsfor which a claim is made in this writ petition. The petitioner’s counsel submits, on instructions, that the claim has been rendered infructuous.
W.P.(C) 1350/2016 is therefore dismissed as infructuous.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 09, 2016 sapna
SAMITECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX
S. Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
