TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... APPL. 6002/2021 (for ex-parte ad-interim stay) 3. Before we deal with the challenge made in the present petition, it would be apposite to note the brief factual background. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a W.P.(C.) 4904/2015 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'DVAT Act'), the notice of default assessment of tax and interest dated 28th March, 2015 as well as notice of assessment of penalty dated 28th March, 2015 for the year 2010-11. 4. The said petition was allowed in favour of the Petitioner vide judgment dated 26th October 2017 along with other batch of matters, holding, inter al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for which liberty is granted, as prayed for." 6. In terms of the aforesaid liberty granted to it, the Petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous application being CM Appl. 27370/2018 in W.P.(C.) 4904/2015 before this Court. Although initially notice was issued on the said application, however after hearing both the sides, the application was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 17th January, 2020, granting liberty to the Applicant to issue a show cause notice in accordance with law. The relevant portion of said order reads as under: "1. Counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to withdraw this application with liberty to issue a further show cause notice in accordance with law and to pursue further proceedings consistent with the law laid do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was filed by the Respondents before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 17th January, 2020 granting liberty to the Respondents to issue further show cause notice in accordance with law. He submits that therefore the abovesaid order has to be read in two parts. The first one grants the liberty to the Respondents to issue a show cause notice, and the second part allows the Respondents to pursue further proceedings consistent with the law laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 26th October, 2017 extracted earlier. 10. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid order was passed by ignoring the mandate of Section 34 of the DVAT Act which prescribes limitation for completion of assessmen....