The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition regarding VAT refund. The respondent undertook to pass a speaking adjudication order within four weeks of document submission.
Petitioner granted liberty to seek revival of the writ petition if the speaking order is not passed 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.
$~19.
VIOWN METTUBE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES AND ANOTEHR
..... Respondents Through Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC & Mr. Ahmed Said, Advocate alongwith Mr. Dinesh Gandhi, VATO.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R % 22.03.2018
Counsel for the respondents states that notice under Section 59(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 have been issued and the petitioner is required to produce C Form and other documents.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
MARCH 22, 2018 VKR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VIOWN METTUBE PRIVATE LIMITED
COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES
SANJIV KHANNA
CHANDER SHEKHAR
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
