IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BINDAL & HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
M/s Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 20788 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2017
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of petitions bearing CWP Nos. 20788, 23671, 23721, 24700, 24847, 24966, 25336, 25848, 26508, 26833, 27005, 27006, 27032, 27448, 27458, 27526 of 2015, 787, 788, 798, 1868, 2197, 3196, 3748, 3768, 6796, 8820, 18377 and 19413 of 2016, as the issues involved in all the petitions are identical.
FACTS OF THE CASES
CWP No. 20788 of 2015
2. The petitioner claims itself to be a registered dealer under the provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the Act). The assessment of the petitioner for the year 2011-12 was framed vide order dated 15.5.2013. Notice under Section 34 of the Act for revision of the assessment order was issued on 4.6.2015. The revisional authority passed the order on 3.7.2015. The revisional order has been challenged, inter-alia, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction.
CWP No. 23671 of 2015
3. Assessment of the petitioner for the year 2010-11 was framed vide order dated 30.4.2012 while accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Notice under Section 34 of the Act for revision of the assessment order was issued on 14.5.2005. The same was challenged by filing CWP No. 37858 of 2015, which was disposed of on 29.9.2015 directing the authority to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioner for initiation of revisional proceedings before taking further action in the matter. The revisional authority passed order on 21.8.2015 and served upon the petitioner on 7.10.2015. In the writ petition, challenge has been made to the aforesaid order being in violation of the provisions of the Act.
CWP No. 23721 of 2015
4. Assessment of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 was framed vide order dated 29.4.2011 while accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Notice under Section 34 of the Act for revision of the assessment order was issued on 18.5.2015. The same was challenged by filing CWP No. 17880 of 2015, which was disposed of on 14.9.2015 directing the authority to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioner for initiation of revisional proceedings before taking further action in the matter. The revisional authority passed order on 22.7.2015 and served upon the petitioner on 30.10.2015. In the writ petition, challenge has been made to the aforesaid order being in violation of the provisions of the Act.
CWP No. 24700 of 2015
5. Assessment of the petitioner for the year 2008-09 was framed vide order dated 26.4.2010 while accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Notice under Section 34 of the Act for revision of the assessment order was issued on 24.6.2015. The revisional order was passed on 15.7.2015. In the writ petition, challenge has been made to the aforesaid order being without jurisdiction.
CWP No. 24847 of 2015
6. Assessment of the petitioner for the year 2009-10 was framed vide order dated 28.4.2011. Notice under Section 34 of the Act for revision of the order was issued on 2.7.2015. The revisional order was passed on 15.7.2015. In the writ petition, challenge has been made to the aforesaid order being without jurisdiction.
CWP No. 24966 of 2015
7. Assessment of the petitioner for the year 2007-08 was framed vide order dated 11.2.2010 while accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Notice under Section 34 of the Act for revision of the assessment order was issued on 17.7.2015. The same was challenged by filing CWP No. 16955 of 2015, which was disposed of on 14.9.2015 directing the authority to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioner for initiation of revisional proceedings before taking further action in the matter. The revisional authority passed the order on 20.10.2015 dismissing the objections. In the writ petition, challenge has been made to the aforesaid order being without jurisdiction and vires of Explanation (i) to Section 2(1) (zg) of the Act.
CWP N
A.V. Fernandez vs. State of Kerala
Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. Union of India
Addl. Commissioner (Legal) and Another vs. Jyoti Traders and Another
Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., Maharashtra
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Union of India
Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited
C. Golak Nath and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another
Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs
Commissioner of Central Excise Bolpur vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries
D.G. Gose and Co. (Agents) (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
Gannon Dunkerley & Co. vs. State of Rajasthan
Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra
Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra
Heinz India (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2012) 5 SCC 443
Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera vs. Umrao and Others
Jagannath Baksh Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1563
J.P. Jani, Income Tax Officer vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt
K. Raheja Development Corporation vs. State of Karnataka
Kumarasamy Pathar vs. State of Madras
K.T. Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala
Larsen & Toubro vs. Union of India
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Bihar
Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another
M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shanti Misra
Neeldhara Weav. Factory vs. Dir. Gen. of Foreign Trade, New Delhi
National Mineral Development Coporation Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and Another
Rai Ramkrishna vs. State of Bihar
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs. Pune Municipal Transport and Others
State of Rajasthan and Another vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and Another
State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and Others
State of Jharkhand vs. Voltas Ltd. East Singhbhum
State of Rajasthan vs. M/s R.S. Sharma and Co. (1988) 4 SCC 353
State of A.P. vs. Nalla Raja Reddy
State of Orissa vs. Dandasi Sahu
T. Kallamurthi vs. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf
Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar
The State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha and Others
Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur
Union of India and Others vs. Uttam Steel Ltd. (2015) 319 ELT 598
Vishnu Dayal Mahendra Pal vs. State of U.P. (1974) 2 SCC 306
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.