Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 6]

Chattisgarh High Court

M/S Jagdish Construction Private ... vs Appellate Additional Commissioner Of ... on 18 July, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                       1

                                                                       NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            WPT No. 138 of 2018

       M/s. Jagdish Construction Private Limited having its office at B-4,
       Commercial Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba (CG) through its authorized
       signatory Sushil Kumar Agrawal aged about 50 years, S/o Late
       Shrikishan Agrawal R/o Darri Road, Korba (CG)       ----Petitioner

                                       Versus

     1. Appellate Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur (CG)
        Office of Appellate Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
        Raipur (CG)

     2. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Commercial
        Taxes, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh)   ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, G. A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 18/07/18

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority without complying with Rule 59 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called as "the Rules of 2006').

2. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State would support the impugned order.

3. Since opportunity as required under Rule 59 of the Rules of 2006 to comply with Section 48(4) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rule 57 of the Rules of 2006 was not granted to the petitioner 2 before dismissing the appeal which is mandatory in nature, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the appellate authority to grant opportunity to the petitioner as required under Rule 59 of the Rules 2006 and to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).

SD/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka