Disposed

Shyam Avtar Lights Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Delhi HC2 Nov 2017W.P.(C)/4391/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner agreed to pursue alternative statutory remedies under Section 74 of the Delhi VAT Act within the specified limitation period.

What did the court decide?

Concession granted that the writ petition will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation if the alternative remedy availed on or before 15th November, 2017.

Shyam Avtar Lights Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~10

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4391/2017 SHYAM AVTAR LIGHTS PRIVATE LTD. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Mr. Virag Tiwari, Ms.Aastha Gandhi, Mr.V.K. Jain, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD.

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶6

O R D E R % 02.11.2017

¶7

After some hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to the suggestion given by the court that he shall avail of the alternative statutory remedy under Section 74 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (‘Act’ in short). We may note that the issue raised in the present case is partly covered by the judgment of this court dated Vizien Organics v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes and Another (2017) 98 VST 369 . However, the operation of the said judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 1^st February, 2017 in the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Government.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per sub-Section (4) of Section 74 of the Act, objections are to be filed within a period of two months from the date of the service of the assessment, or order or decision.

¶9

The proviso to the said section stipulates that delay can be condoned for a further period of two months.

¶10

In the present case, the petitioner was bona fidely pursuing the present writ petition in this court and hence, we feel that in case the petitioner avails its remedy under Section 74 of the Act, on or before 15^th November, 2017, the said proceedings will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The said concession/exclusion would be in accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶11

We may note that the counsel for the respondent has also agreed to the said concession/exclusion without accepting the claim on merits.

¶12

Recording the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶14

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶15

NOVEMBER 02, 2017

¶16

Shyam Avtar Lights Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Avtar Lights Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashi Ram Vs Union of India & Ors.

Lalit Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Madan Pal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Chand Jain Vs Union of India

M/S Mgs Vaults Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt. of Delhi & Ors.

Madan Kumar Vs University of Delhi & Anr.

Golden Tobacco Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj)

M.S.Gahlot Vs Bses

Commissioner of Customs Vs Emd Locomotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Tahir Star Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Preventive

Ajs Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ijm Corporation Berhad Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

M.v.Omni Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes