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 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sabsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 29 October, 2010

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal

Civil Writ Petition No.19468 of 2010                        -1-

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                        Civil Writ Petition No.19468 of 2010
                        Date of decision: 29.10.2010

Sabsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

                                                ...Petitioner

              Versus

The State of Punjab and another

                                                ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL


Present: Mr. K.L.Goel, Senior Advocate with
         Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocate for the petitioner
                                ****

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (Oral)

This petition seeks quashing of order dated 1.7.2009- Annexure P-7 passed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 29(2) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 by respondent no.2.

Case of the petitioner is that under the order of assessment demand of more than Rs.1 crores has been raised only on account of late submission of 'E1' and 'C' forms, which were refused to be taken on record on the ground that time for furnishing the same had already expired. It was submitted that goods have been sold on 'EI' forms in which event no tax of Punjab State was attracted.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, rejection of forms was against law laid down by this Court in R.S.Cotton Mills, opp. Markfed Plant Vs. State of Punjab and another (2008) 32 PHT 651 (P&H).

We need not go into the merits of the case as alternative Civil Writ Petition No.19468 of 2010 -2- remedy is available to the petitioner. Only difficulty expressed in availing the said remedy is requirement of pre-deposit and apprehension that appeal may have become barred by limitation. Having regard to facts and circumstances noted above, we direct that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within fifteen days from today, the same may be decided on merits without insisting on requirement of pre-deposit.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.




                                             (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
                                                     Judge


October 29,2010                               (Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Pka                                                  Judge