TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court permits record summoning for revisionary proceedings, stays DVAT Act notice proceedings pending clarity.</h1> <h3>M/s. Moon Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes & Ors.</h3> M/s. Moon Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes & Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Application for summoning records in connection with revisionary proceedings.2. Writ petition against notice issued under DVAT Act seeking interim relief.3. Previous writ petition concerning refund directions and subsequent notices issued by revenue.Issue 1: Application for summoning records in connection with revisionary proceedingsThe petitioner filed an application seeking to summon the records of the Special Commissioner and AVATO, Ward-61 in relation to revisionary proceedings initiated through notices dated 07.10.2022 and 25.10.2022. The respondents did not object to producing the records, leading to the application being allowed. The application was disposed of after the respondents' acceptance.Issue 2: Writ petition against notice issued under DVAT Act seeking interim reliefThe writ petition challenged the notice dated 25.10.2022 issued by the respondent under Section 74A(2) of the DVAT Act. The petitioner argued for refund directions based on previous proceedings concerning a refund amounting to Rs. 2,14,70,300/- for FY 2016-2017. The respondents were directed to respond, and further instructions were awaited. The matter was listed for a future date for detailed consideration.Issue 3: Previous writ petition concerning refund directions and subsequent notices issued by revenueA previous writ petition (W.P.(C) 12933/2022) involving refund directions was mentioned, where the petitioner sought refund directions for tax demands of all quarters of 2016. The respondents had withdrawn a notice dated 07.10.2022 in a previous proceeding. However, new notices dated 25.10.2022 and 07.11.2022 were issued, leading to confusion as the latter was labeled a 'reminder.' The court noted similarities between the withdrawn notice and the new notice, prompting a stay on proceedings triggered by the impugned notice. The court directed the filing of counter-affidavits and flagged the case for further hearing.This judgment addresses multiple issues, including the application for summoning records, a writ petition seeking interim relief against a notice under the DVAT Act, and the complexity arising from previous and subsequent proceedings concerning refund directions. The court's meticulous examination of the facts and legal arguments demonstrates a thorough consideration of the petitioner's grievances and the respondents' actions, ensuring a fair and just resolution through detailed proceedings and directions for further submissions and hearings.
TaxTMI 