Petitioner wrote petition for refund. Refund had been paid. Court dismissed petition as withdrawn but awarded costs of Rs.5,000 to petitioner as he had approached court for refund.
Costs of Rs.5,000 to be paid by respondents to petitioner within four weeks.
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.
$~11.
APEX ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Suhail Anjum Siddiqui & Mr. M.A. Ansari, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF VAT & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate for Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R % 22.11.2017
It is stated that refund has been paid. In view of the aforesaid position, counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the present writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Costs of Rs.5,000/- would be paid by the respondents to the petitioner as he had to approach the Court asking for refund. The said costs would be paid within four weeks from today.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 22, 2017 VKR
Apex Enterprises
Commissioner of VAT
Sanjiv Khanna
Prathiba M. Singh
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
