9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 359 - HC - GSTValidity of proviso to Section 16(4) of the Central Goods And Services Act, 2017 - petitioner/applicant states that though the ground to challenge the proviso to Section 16(4) had been pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition, however, inadvertently, the prayer challenging the validity of proviso to Section 16(4) was not incorporated in the Prayer Clause (A) of the petition - HELD THAT - Issue notice. Since the amendment is formal in nature, the same is allowed and the amended writ petition is taken on record - present application stands allowed.
Issues:
Amendment of writ petition to challenge proviso to Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 and DGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The High Court of Delhi, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula, addressed the urgent application filed by Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate, seeking to amend the writ petition to include a prayer challenging the proviso to Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the ground to challenge the proviso had been mentioned in the writ petition but was inadvertently omitted from the Prayer Clause (A). The Court duly noted the urgency expressed in the application and conducted the hearing via video conferencing. Upon acceptance of notice by the counsels representing the respondents, the Court deemed the amendment to be formal in nature and allowed the petitioner's application to amend the writ petition. Consequently, the amended writ petition was taken on record. The Court directed the order to be uploaded on the website immediately and also instructed for a copy of the order to be sent to the respective counsels via email. The application seeking the amendment was thus granted, and the matter was resolved efficiently by the Court. In conclusion, the High Court of Delhi, in a swift and efficient manner, allowed the petitioner's application to amend the writ petition to incorporate a prayer challenging the proviso to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and DGST Act, 2017. The Court recognized the inadvertent omission in the original petition and rectified it promptly, ensuring that the petitioner's grounds for challenge were properly included in the record. The judgment highlights the Court's commitment to addressing urgent matters and ensuring procedural correctness in legal proceedings.
|
