M/s Aneja Enterprises v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Jun 2011
- Bench
- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Provisions considered
- Haryana VAT Act, 2003 s. 7(1)(a)(ii)
- Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 s. 15(a)
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Jitin Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This petition seeks quashing of notification dated
19.4.2011, Annexure P-2, issued under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”) fixing the rate of tax on sale of declared goods to be 5%. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notification is violative of Section 59 of the Act, laying down procedure for amendment of Schedules. We do not find any merit in the contention. The impugned notification does not in any manner amend any of the Schedules and is within the purview of power conferred under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act of fixing the rate of tax within the C.W.P. No.10411 of 2011 2 ceiling limit prescribed under Section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE June 02, 2011 ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Haryana VAT Act, 2003 — s. 7(1)(a)(ii); Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — s. 15(a).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 02 Jun 2011. The bench was ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, 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.