M/S Buildwell Construction Co. Vs. the State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1140998
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-20-2014
AppellantM/S Buildwell Construction Co.
RespondentThe State of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
cwp no.9715 of 2014 [1].in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.9715 of 2014 decided on : 20.05.2014 m/s buildwell construction co.. petitioner versus the state of punjab and another . . respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice ajay kumar mittal hon'ble mr.justice jaspal singh present: mr.avneesh jhingan, advocate for the petitioner. **** ajay kumar mittal, j. (oral) primary grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that on 11.02.2014 (annexure p-2) an application had been submitted to respondent no.2 for exemption from the payment of advance tax, as the petitioner is covered under the relevant provisions of section 6(7) of the punjab value added tax act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') followed by reminders annexure p-3 & p-4, but no decision thereon has been taken by the concerned respondent so far. 2. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question of vires has also been assailed in this writ petition. but in case certificate of lower rate of tax deduction or exemption is granted, then the question of vires raised, shall be rendered academic. 3. in view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent no.2 to take a decision on annexure p-2 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. it is, however, clarified that the question of vires of provisions of sections 6(7) and 39a of jawala ram 2014.05.22 16:56 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.9715 of 2014 [2].the act is not being adjudicated upon at this stage and it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this court again laying challenge to the vires of the aforesaid provisions in accordance with law, after the decision on the application (annexure p-2) by the concerned authority. (ajay kumar mittal) judge (jaspal singh) may 20, 2014 judge j.ram jawala ram 2014.05.22 16:56 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CWP No.9715 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9715 of 2014 Decided on : 20.05.2014 M/s Buildwell Construction Co..

Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another .

.

Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH PRESENT: Mr.Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

(Oral) Primary grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that on 11.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) an application had been submitted to respondent No.2 for exemption from the payment of advance tax, as the petitioner is covered under the relevant provisions of Section 6(7) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') followed by reminders Annexure P-3 & P-4, but no decision thereon has been taken by the concerned respondent so far.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question of vires has also been assailed in this writ petition.

But in case certificate of lower rate of tax deduction or exemption is granted, then the question of vires raised, shall be rendered academic.

3.

In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on Annexure P-2 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

It is, however, clarified that the question of vires of provisions of Sections 6(7) and 39A of Jawala Ram 2014.05.22 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9715 of 2014 [2].the Act is not being adjudicated upon at this stage and it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again laying challenge to the vires of the aforesaid provisions in accordance with law, after the decision on the application (Annexure P-2) by the concerned authority.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (JASPAL SINGH) May 20, 2014 JUDGE J.Ram Jawala Ram 2014.05.22 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document