This writ petition challenging a VAT demand notice was disposed of on preliminary hearing as the respondent admitted withdrawal of the demand and attachment notices via a filed memo.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.3322/2021 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/s. Brindvan Upahara Boarding, No.74, SBM Road, K.R. Sagara, Srirantapatna Taluk, Mandya District - 571 607, Rept. by its Proprietor. … Petitioner
(By Sri Surya Kanth C.S., Advocate)
AND:
The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO - 215, Chikkamanday Kere Angala, Vivekananganagara, Mandya District - 571 401. … Respondent
(By Sri K. Hema Kumar, HCGP)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash notice of demand for payment of tax issue in Form VAT 210 dated 15.02.2020 issued by the respondent produced at Annexure-C and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:
2
ORDER
Sri K.Hema Kumar, the learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondent has filed a memo dated 24.02.2021 enclosing the communications dated 23.02.2021. He submits that the demand notice at Annexure-C and the attachment notice at Annexure-F have been withdrawn.
Sd/JUDGE
VGR
M/s. Brindvan Upahara Boarding
The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court