M/S Ganpati Packers vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Original PDF →CWP/19646/2022HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01097052202202 September 2022Bench: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA2 pages
No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-19646-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision:02.09.2022
M/s Ganpati Packers
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & others
... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA.
Present:-
Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
...
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Instant petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the
2nd respondent i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Ludhiana to credit
the amount of refund already sanctioned vide order dated 18.09.2019
(Annexure P-2) along with interest under Section 56 of the CGTST/SGST
Act, 2017.
Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset makes a submission
that he would be satisfied if directions were to be issued for the writ petition
itself to be treated as a representation and the refund already sanctioned be
processed within a stipulated time frame.
We find such submission to be just and reasonable.
In view of the above and without even ascertaining the
correctness of the averments made in the petition, writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to treat the instant
writ petition along with Annexures as a grievance petition/representation and
HARJEET KAUR
2022.09.06 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-19646-2022 (O&M)
-2-
to take a final view as regards processing and release of the refund already
sanctioned vide order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure P-2) expeditiously and in
any case within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. Disposed of. Needless to observe that in case the competent authority takes a view that there is a legal impediment insofar as the amount of refund already sanctioned, in such eventuality, a speaking/reasoned order will be passed and communicated to the petitioner. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE 02.09.2022 harjeet
1.
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2022.09.06 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.