Full Text
Translation output
2017:DHC:8699-DB $-49 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9576/2017
M/S MANGALAM TRADERS Petitioner
Through; Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
W.P.(C) 9576/2017
M/S MANGALAM TRADERS Petitioner
Through; Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX, &ANR.
Respondent
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel for Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi
Respondent
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel for Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
07.08.2018 C.M. AddI. No. 31688/2018rrestoration^
By this application the petitioner seeks revival ofthe petition on the ground that the learned Commissioner has determined the amount ofrefund due to dealer as ^20,86,966/- instead of^24,47,850/-. We find no ground to revive the petition. However, ifthe petitioner has a grievance regarding disallowance ofany part ofits refund claimed, it may exercise its right ofappeal, ifthat not already done.
The application is dismissed.
L/vvXiA&AiJ' S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J k A. K. CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 07,2018 pkb 2017:DHC:8699-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
07.08.2018 C.M. AddI. No. 31688/2018rrestoration^
By this application the petitioner seeks revival ofthe petition on the ground that the learned Commissioner has determined the amount ofrefund due to dealer as ^20,86,966/- instead of^24,47,850/-. We find no ground to revive the petition. However, ifthe petitioner has a grievance regarding disallowance ofany part ofits refund claimed, it may exercise its right ofappeal, ifthat not already done.
The application is dismissed.
L/vvXiA&AiJ' S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J k A. K. CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 07,2018 pkb 2017:DHC:8699-DB
JUDGMENT