In CWP No. 28509 of 2018, the Patiala High Court [Note: Text says High Court of Punjab and Haryana] disposed of the petitioner's petition as infructuous because the underlying Section 39 order was already challenged in a separate writ petition.
Disposed of as infructuous due to pendency of parallel writ challenge.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 28509 of 2018 Decided on : 15.05.2018
M/s Sweta Estaes (P) Ltd.
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
PRESENT: Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate and Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana. ****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, A.C.J. (Oral)
The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notices dated 22.11.2017 (appended as Annexures P-14 & P-15 respectively) being illegal and without jurisdiction, whereby, the petitioner has been asked to deposit the alleged excess collection of tax from its customers despite the fact that the entire amount collected has been deposited upto last penny with the Department and the liability has also been charged under the Amnesty Scheme by way of one time settlement which was in lieu of the tax, interest and penalty payable by the petitioner in respect of the period in question which would include even the proceedings under Section 39 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short 'the HVAT Act').
CWP No. 28509 of 2018
- 2 -
been communicated to the petitioner, which has been impugned in CWP No. 29836 of 2017. According to the petitioner, the said order has been antedated so as to make it before 14th December, 2017.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) May 15, 2018 JUDGE J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Jawala Ram 2018.05.16 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of as infructuous given that the underlying order was already impugned in another proceeding.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notices dated 22.11.2017 regarding alleged excess tax collection.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Sweta Estaes (P) Ltd.
State of Haryana
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
