Petitioner submitted that the refund issue was settled as the amount was already paid. The High Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed.
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.
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 14.10.2019
M/S ARIHANT MARKETING ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, proxy counsel for Mr. Arif Khan, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Hafsa Khan, Adv. for respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the grievances ventilated in this petition have been brought to an end and the refund amount under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 has already been paid by the respondent to the petitioner.
In view of this limited submission, this writ petition is disposed of as not pressed at this stage.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 14, 2019/kks
M/S ARIHANT MARKETING
COMMISSIONER, TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR.
C. Hari Shankar
D.N. Patel
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
