Dismissed

M/S Hanumant Lal Radhey Sham, Fatehabad v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Nov 2008CWP/19181/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed this writ petition seeking quashing of a Haryana Tax Tribunal order. The Court held that the appealed order attained finality after the dismissal of a prior writ petition by this Court, rendering the current petition akin to a review with no grounds to be entertained. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the writ petition seeking quashing of the Haryana Tax Tribunal's order, the petition was dismissed as a review petition.

M/S Hanumant Lal Radhey Sham, Fatehabad Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.19181 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.11.2008

¶4

M/s Hanumant Lal Radhey Shyam, Fatehabad.

¶5

-----Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Haryana and others.

¶8

-----Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Devi Dayal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This petition seeks quashing of order of Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (constituted under the provisions of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003) dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P-22), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure P-19). By the said order (Annexure P-19), appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority respondent No.4 against the order of assessment dated 3.6.2005 (Annexure P-13).

¶13

The petitioner was assessed under the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Thereafter, the petitioner was reassessed on the allegation of turnover escaping assessment. He preferred an appeal and sought waiver of pre-deposit, on the ground that business of the firm was

¶14

C.W.P. No.19181 of 2008

¶15

¶16

closed and the assessee did not have capacity to pay. On the said application, partial waiver was granted vide order dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure P-15), which order was further modified by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2006 (Annexure P-17). Review application against the said order was dismissed on 13.11.2007. The said order was challenged by the assessee by filing C.W.P. No.13745 of 2008, which was dismissed on 5.8.2008. The petitioner failed to comply with the condition of deposit, on which the appeal was dismissed, which order has now been affirmed by the Tribunal vide impugned order Annexure P-22.

¶17

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

It is patent that the order of the Tribunal dated 12.10.2006 attained finality after dismissal of writ petition by this Court vide order dated 5.8.2008. This petition is, thus, in the nature of review.

¶19

We do not find any ground to entertain this petition.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE

¶22

November 10, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE

M/S Hanumant Lal Radhey Sham, Fatehabad v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hanumant Lal Radhey Sham, Fatehabad v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C I T Vs M/S Rubber Udyog Vikas P Ltd.

Punjab Roadways and Ors. Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

Surjit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

C I T Vs Khanna Improvement Trust

Freedom Info Systems Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Ujagar Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.