M/s Super Hinges Pvt. Ltd v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 s. 51(8)
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR JUDGE, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 16.10.2007 (P-14) to the extent that the application of the petitioner under Rule 70 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) and Section 51(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is not being entertained. According to the aforementioned provisions the petitioner could file an application for adopting the auction procedure on the value assessed by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may challenge the order dated 16.10.2007 (P-14) at an appropriate forum for other purposes C.W.P. No. 17609 of 2007 2 but respondent No. 3 must entertain his application for adopting auction procedure. Notice of motion. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents on our asking. A copy of the paper book has been handed over to Mr. Amol Rattan Singh. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up today itself for final disposal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the request of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Let an application be filed within one week from today by the petitioner with a request to respondent No. 3 to adopt auction procedure. If such an application is filed then the same is to be decided and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE November 20, 2007 Pkapoor (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 — s. 51(8).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 20 Nov 2007. The bench was M M KUMAR, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.