The petition for refund of excess VAT was declared infructuous after the authorities adjusted the challenged amounts just before the hearing. The petitioner's claim was disposed of without a substantive determination of the refund entitlement.
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.
$~10
ROCKWELL INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Mr.Himanshu, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R % 14.01.2019
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 14, 2019/ „hkaur‟
Rockwell Industries
Commissioner of Trade & Taxes
S. Ravindra Bhat
Prateek Jalan
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
