B.K.S. Motors (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Delhi High Court · 25 Apr 2017 · 2017:DHC:8162-DB
S. Muralidhar; Chander Shekhar
W.P.(C)12054/2016
2017:DHC:8162-DB
tax petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging tax notices and assessments after the Department withdrew the notices and proceedings issued by mistake.

Full Text
Translation output
j- HIGH COURT OF DELHI 26& 27.
W.P.(C)12054/2016
B.K.S.MOTORS(P)LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajesh Jain and Mr.Virag Tiwari, Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE& TAXES Respondent
Through:Mr.Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel, Govt. ofNOT ofDelhi along with Mr. Amit Sharma,LA,Department ofTrade &Taxes in person.
AND
W.P.(C)1205772016 B.K.S.MOTORS(P)LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajesh Jain and Mr.Virag Tiwari, Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE&TAXES Respondent
Through: Mr.Satyakam,AdditionalStanding Counsel, Govt. ofNCT of Delhi along with Mr. Amit Sharma, LA,Department ofTrade& Taxes in person.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
25.04.2017 1.Mr.Satyakam,learned Additional Standing counsel appearing forthe
W.P.
(C)12054/2016 Page1 of2 2017:DHC:8162-DB Respondent/Department at the outset states that the notice dated 30^'' July, 2016 under Section 59(a)ofthe Delhi Value Added Tax Act,2004('DYAT
Act') (Annexure P-8 collectively) proposing to examine the matter regarding enforcement ofthe survey dated 15^*^ July,2016 for the period 1^^
April, 2016 to 15^*^ July, 2016 and further notice dated 22"^^ August,2016 requiring thePetitionerto appear before the AVATO(Ward 17)and produce the books of accounts and all evidence on which it relied in support ofthe above examination were issued by mistake and are hereby stand withdrawn.
It is further stated that all the proceedings pursuant to the aforementioned two notices including the impugned notices of default assessments of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 32 and 33 ofthe DYAT Act dated 18"^
October, 2016 for all the quarters of 2013-14 and 2014-15 also stand withdrawn.
ORDER

2. Mr. Satyakam further states that the Department proposes to proceed strictly in accordance with law.

3. In view ofthe above statement,the prayers in these two writ petitions do not survive.The petitions are disposed ofas such.

S.MURALIDHAR,J P CHANDER SHEKHAR,J