Petitioner sought relief claiming a refund. Court noted refund had been paid per counsel, rendering writ infructuous, and disposed of petition.
Disposed as infructuous on consent that refund was paid.
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.
$~16
GAURAV ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.A. Ansari, Mr.Khursheed Ahmed, Advocates
versus
COMMISSIONER OF VAT & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Mr.C.K. Bhatt, Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R
% 08.02.2018
Counsel for the petitioner states that the refund has been paid.
In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petition has become infructuous and is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2018 pk
Gaurav Enterprises
Commissioner of VAT
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
