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 39]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Bar Council Of Chhattisgarh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors. 18 ... on 4 April, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                                                                 NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              Writ Petition (T) No.217 of 2009

             State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh, A body corporate under Section 5 of
             the Advocates Act, 1961, situated at High Court Premises, Bilaspur (C.G.)
             through its officer on Special Duty and officiating secretary, V.A.
             Narayanan.
                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                           Versus

          1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Aaykar Bhavan,
             Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

          2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.), Aaykar Bhavan, Vyapar
             Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

          3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (C.G.), New Central Revenue
             Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)

          4. Central Board of Direct Taxes, through Secretary, North Block, New
             Delhi.

          5. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of
             Revenue, North Block, New Delhi

          6. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption), Plot No. 15, II Floor, Laxmi
             Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi
                                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioner: Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 and 6: -

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 04/04/2018
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition is filed for refund of recovered amount and that has already been refunded.

Therefore, the petition has become infructuous.

2. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma