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 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

M/S Inox World Industries Pvt. Ltd ... vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2021

Author: Bela M. Trivedi

Bench: Bela M. Trivedi, Ashokkumar C. Joshi

    C/SCA/8533/2021                                   ORDER DATED: 01/07/2021




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8533 of 2021

================================================================
M/S INOX WORLD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR
                   PARMOD KUMAR GUPTA
                           Versus
                  UNION OF INDIA & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SHWETA JAIN for MR KIRTAN H MISTRY(10012) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
       and
       HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                              Date : 01/07/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI)

1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Shweta Jain submits that though the application dated 28.09.2020 made by the petitioner with regard to the release of IGST refund (Annexure B) has been received by the respondent authority on 01.10.2020, it has not been decided, nonetheless, she does not press for the present petition with a view to make a fresh representation, incorporating all the contentions as raised in the present petition.

2. In view of the said submission, the petition is dismissed as not pressed for at this stage, with the liberty as prayed for. The representation that may be made by the Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 03 01:05:20 IST 2021 C/SCA/8533/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2021 petitioner shall be considered by the concerned respondent authority, i.e. respondent No.2 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and in accordance with law. It is clarified that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) (A. C. JOSHI,J) CAROLINE Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 03 01:05:20 IST 2021