Full Text
Translation output
\ $-26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 12127/2016 & CM No.47885/2016
INFINITE PRINT SOLUTIONS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Harishankar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sunil, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 12127/2016 & CM No.47885/2016
INFINITE PRINT SOLUTIONS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Harishankar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sunil, Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF VAT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocate! for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.
Through: Mr. Akash Vajpai, Advocate! for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
0/0 23.12.2016 Issue notice. Mr. Akash Vajpai and Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advocates accept notice on behalf ofrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
The petitioner seeks directions that its appeal before the
Commissioner of Appeals be decided with a direction that only one penalty i.e. 71h % of the basic duty drawback amount be accepted as a pre-condition t for the hearing. It relies upon an order of this Court in respect of the same
Order-in-Original (WP.(C) No.1126412016 Durga Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union ofIndia & Anr., decided on 28.11.2016). In that order, the Court had clarified that if a company and its directors are held jointly and severally liable, one set of pre-deposit is sufficient for hearing of the appeal.
2016:DHC:8967-DB Following that order, it is hereby directed that the separate prerdeposit amount in respect of the petitioners and its directors is not essential. In other words, if one set of pre-deposit amount to the extent of 71f2 % of the duty drawback element is made, it would be considered sufficient compliance with the mandate of law. The Appellate Commissioner shall decide the appeals before him in accordance with law subject to such deposit.
The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
~ S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
NAJlAZIRI, J.
DECEMBER 23, 2016 sb 2016:DHC:8967-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
0/0 23.12.2016 Issue notice. Mr. Akash Vajpai and Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advocates accept notice on behalf ofrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
The petitioner seeks directions that its appeal before the
Commissioner of Appeals be decided with a direction that only one penalty i.e. 71h % of the basic duty drawback amount be accepted as a pre-condition t for the hearing. It relies upon an order of this Court in respect of the same
Order-in-Original (WP.(C) No.1126412016 Durga Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union ofIndia & Anr., decided on 28.11.2016). In that order, the Court had clarified that if a company and its directors are held jointly and severally liable, one set of pre-deposit is sufficient for hearing of the appeal.
2016:DHC:8967-DB Following that order, it is hereby directed that the separate prerdeposit amount in respect of the petitioners and its directors is not essential. In other words, if one set of pre-deposit amount to the extent of 71f2 % of the duty drawback element is made, it would be considered sufficient compliance with the mandate of law. The Appellate Commissioner shall decide the appeals before him in accordance with law subject to such deposit.
The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
~ S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
NAJlAZIRI, J.
DECEMBER 23, 2016 sb 2016:DHC:8967-DB
JUDGMENT