9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 This is an application for modification of the order dated 5th October, 2010. Mr.H.L. Taneja, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Accordingly, the order dated 5th October, 2010 shall read as under: - Since similar controversy is involved in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a singular order. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entions raised in the writ petition. In course of hearing of these writ petitions, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the goods namely, rubber products which are utilized for manufacture of tyres were transported from Kerala to Bangalore after payment of VAT in Kerala and in Bangalore it was handed over to Container Corporation of India, the third respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were actually sold in Delhi or only transported through Delhi to reach another destination. The said inquiry cannot be carried out while dealing with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, we direct that the Value Added Tax officer under the Act shall conduct an inquiry on production of documents before him (which has been filed before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inasmuch as the Container Corporation is not a petitioner before us. As conceded to by Mr. H.L. Taneja, and Mr. S.C. Rajpal, learned counsel the Value Added Tax officer shall also hear the Container Corporation of India so that the controversy can be appreciated from all spectrums. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.? It is further clarified that a sum of Rs. 4 lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
