Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)Nos.8930/2017&8931/2017 CONCEPT TRADEHOME PVT.LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Suhail Anjum Siddiqui,Mr.M.A.
Ansari and Mr.Khursheed Ahmed,Advocates.
W.P.(C)Nos.8930/2017&8931/2017 CONCEPT TRADEHOME PVT.LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Suhail Anjum Siddiqui,Mr.M.A.
Ansari and Mr.Khursheed Ahmed,Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF VAT& ANR. Respondent
Through Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. C.K.
Bhatt,Advocates.
Through Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. C.K.
Bhatt,Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATHIBA M.SINGH
07.12.2017 Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that objections under Section 59(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, were uploaded on the portal ofthe petitioner on 27^*^ July,2017.
Authorized,representative of the petitioner, as per the original file produced before us, had attended the proceedings on different dates beginning from 24"" July,2017. It is also stated that notice/order ofdefault assessment dated B'*"November,2017has been issued.
The original file has been shown to the counsel forthe petitioner, who accepts that in the writ petition the said details and particulars have not been mentioned. It is stated that the authorized representative ofthe petitioner may have appeared, but the counsel who is appearing in the present writ petition did nothave knowledge and was notaware ofthe said position.
2017:DHC:8639-DB In view of what has transpired, we dismiss the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 13^^ November,2017 in accordance with law. However,the petitioner would pay consolidated costs ofRs.20,000/-to the respondents.
SANJIV KHANNA,J.
PRATHIBA M.SINGH,J.
DECEMBER 07,2017 NA ^ 2017:DHC:8639-DB
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATHIBA M.SINGH
07.12.2017 Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that objections under Section 59(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, were uploaded on the portal ofthe petitioner on 27^*^ July,2017.
Authorized,representative of the petitioner, as per the original file produced before us, had attended the proceedings on different dates beginning from 24"" July,2017. It is also stated that notice/order ofdefault assessment dated B'*"November,2017has been issued.
The original file has been shown to the counsel forthe petitioner, who accepts that in the writ petition the said details and particulars have not been mentioned. It is stated that the authorized representative ofthe petitioner may have appeared, but the counsel who is appearing in the present writ petition did nothave knowledge and was notaware ofthe said position.
2017:DHC:8639-DB In view of what has transpired, we dismiss the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 13^^ November,2017 in accordance with law. However,the petitioner would pay consolidated costs ofRs.20,000/-to the respondents.
SANJIV KHANNA,J.
PRATHIBA M.SINGH,J.
DECEMBER 07,2017 NA ^ 2017:DHC:8639-DB
JUDGMENT